CVE-2026-12519
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe WNC-M14A2A LTE-M modem driver mishandles unsolicited %NOTIFYEV: events in on_cmd_socknotifyev() (drivers/modem/vendor_standalone/wncm14a2a.c). The response line is linearized into a fixed 40-byte stack buffer via net_buf_linearize(), which caps the copy at 39 bytes and returns out_len <= 39. The two quote-delimiter scanning loops, however, were bounded by len — the full CR/LF-delimited frame length returned by net_buf_findcrlf() — rather than by out_len. When a %NOTIFYEV: line longer than 39 bytes contains no " within the linearized region, the loop indices p1/p2 walk past value[39] and read adjacent stack memory until a stray quote byte is found or the index reaches len. The over-read string is then passed to strncmp()/atoi()/LOG_*, and if a quote byte is found out of bounds the subsequent value[p2] = '\0' performs a single-NUL out-of-bounds stack write at an attacker-influenced offset. The %NOTIFYEV: payload carries network-derived content (LTIME network time, SIB1 base-station system information, CSPS/RRCSTATE), so a rogue cellular base station, a malicious or compromised modem module, or RF manipulation that induces an over-long notify line reaches the defect without any application interaction; the handler runs automatically on the unsolicited event in the modem RX thread. The impact is out-of-bounds stack disclosure (into logs and parsing) and stack corruption that can crash the modem RX thread (denial of service). The write offset is only weakly controlled, so memory-safe code execution is not demonstrated. The fix bounds both scanning loops by out_len, keeping all accesses within the linearized buffer.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisThe program writes past the bounds of a buffer, overwriting adjacent memory an attacker can turn to their advantage. Crafted input can overwrite control data and redirect execution. Remediation is validating every index and length before a write, plus modern memory-safety mitigations.
General guidance for the out-of-bounds write class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $7,100. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-12519 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-12519 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data