CVE-2026-1874
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 · uneditedAlways-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric Corporation MELSEC iQ-F Series FX5-ENET/IP Ethernet Module FX5-ENET/IP versions 1.106 and prior and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation MELSEC iQ-F Series FX5-EIP EtherNet/IP Module FX5-EIP versions 1.000 and prior allows a remote attacker to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition on the products by continuously sending UDP packets to the products. A system reset of the product is required for recovery.
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 confidenceThis is an Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric's MELSEC iQ-F Series Ethernet modules (FX5-ENET/IP and FX5-EIP). A remote attacker can cause a persistent denial-of-service condition by continuously sending specially crafted UDP packets to the affected devices, which causes the modules to become unresponsive and requires a manual system reset for recovery.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.000<= 1.106CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Identify the installed Ethernet module modelLocate the physical module on the MELSEC iQ-F Series PLC rack or check the system configuration in GX Works3. Confirm whether the module is FX5-EIP (Ethernet/IP) or FX5-ENET/IP.Affected if The module is either FX5-EIP or FX5-ENET/IP.
-
Determine the firmware version of the Ethernet moduleAccess the module properties via GX Works3 (MELSEC iQ-F programming software) or through the module's built-in web server if enabled. Record the firmware version number displayed.Affected if The firmware version is 1.000 or lower for FX5-EIP, or 1.106 or lower for FX5-ENET/IP.
-
Verify network exposure of the affected moduleReview network firewall rules and segment configurations to determine whether the Ethernet module is accessible from untrusted network segments. Check if UDP ports used by the Ethernet/IP or ENET/IP protocol are exposed to external or less-trusted networks.Affected if The module UDP ports are reachable from untrusted network sources or the internet.
-
Check for signs of module unresponsivenessMonitor PLC communication status in GX Works3 or observe whether the Ethernet module stops responding to network requests. Attempt a ping or protocol-specific query to the module IP address.Affected if The module has become unresponsive or fails to respond to legitimate network queries after receiving crafted UDP packets.
A user is affected if they have an FX5-EIP (firmware <=1.000) or FX5-ENET/IP (firmware <=1.106) module with its UDP interfaces exposed to untrusted networks, or if the module has already become unresponsive.
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.
dbcve · scopedNetwork segmentation and firewall rules should be implemented to restrict UDP traffic to the affected modules from untrusted sources. Once Mitsubishi Electric releases patched firmware versions, immediate application is recommended along with testing in a staging environment before production deployment.
FX5-ENET/IP version 1.107 or later; FX5-EIP version 1.001 or later
- Identify the specific model of the affected device (FX5-ENET/IP or FX5-EIP)
- Locate the Mitsubishi Electric download page for MELSEC iQ-F series firmware updates
- Download the latest firmware version from the official Mitsubishi Electric support website
- Consult the device manual for firmware update instructions specific to your model
- Ensure the firmware update is performed in a controlled environment with stable power
- After updating, verify the firmware version has been successfully applied
- Test normal network operations to confirm the device functions correctly after the update
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-1874 — 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-2026-1874 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