CVE-2026-13564
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was found in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. Affected is the function formPPPoESetup of the file /goform/formPPPoESetup of the component POST Request Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument pppUserName results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 analysis · high confidenceA stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04 router firmware's PPPoE setup form handler. The pppUserName parameter in POST requests to /goform/formPPPoESetup is not properly bounds-checked before being copied to a stack buffer, allowing remote attackers to overflow the stack and potentially achieve remote code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm device modelIdentify the router model via web interface, label on device, or SNMP/sysinfo query. Look for 'Edimax EW-7478APC' or similar branding.Affected if The device is an Edimax EW-7478APC unit.
-
Check firmware versionAccess the router web interface and look for a Firmware Version or Software Version field (typically under System or Status). Alternatively, check via SSH/Telnet if enabled using 'cat /proc/version' or 'nvram get firmver'.Affected if The firmware version is 1.04.
-
Verify PPPoE is configuredLog into the router web interface and navigate to the WAN or Internet settings section. Look for a PPPoE connection type option and check if it is enabled or any PPPoE fields (Username/Password) are populated.Affected if PPPoE is enabled or the PPPoE setup form is accessible on the device.
-
Check management interface exposureDetermine if the router web interface (port 80/443) is accessible from untrusted networks by reviewing firewall rules, port forwards, or external connectivity. Use a external scanner or check router ACL settings.Affected if The /goform/formPPPoESetup endpoint is reachable from untrusted networks (e.g., the internet).
A user is affected if they own an Edimax EW-7478APC router running firmware version 1.04 with PPPoE enabled and the management interface exposed to untrusted networks.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataSince the vendor did not respond to disclosure, apply compensating controls such as restricting management interface access to trusted networks, disabling PPPoE if unused, or replacing the device. If firmware source is available, implement proper input length validation and use safe string functions in the formPPPoESetup function.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-13564 — 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-2026-13564 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