Uncontrolled Resource ConsumptionWeakness · CWE-400

CVE-2026-22542

CRITICAL · 9.2 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-01-07
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An attacker with access to the system's internal network can cause a denial of service on the system by making two concurrent connections through the Telnet service.

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 · moderate confidence

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in a system's Telnet service where an attacker with internal network access can trigger a DoS condition by establishing two concurrent Telnet connections, likely exploiting a race condition or resource handling flaw in the connection handling logic.

MitigationIf Telnet is not required, disable the service entirely. If required, restrict network access to the Telnet port to trusted internal systems only and monitor for unusual connection patterns.

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
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Telnet service status
    Check if the Telnet server daemon is running on the system. On Linux: 'systemctl status telnet' or 'ps aux | grep telnet'. On Windows: check if 'Telnet Service' is started via Services console or 'sc query telnet'.
    Affected if Telnet service is actively running and accepting connections.
  2. Identify Telnet daemon version
    Query the Telnet service version. For common Linux Telnet servers (like xinetd-based or systemd socket-activated): check the package version via 'dpkg -l | grep telnet' or 'rpm -q telnet-server'. For embedded/network devices, connect to the Telnet port and look for banner information using 'nc -v <target> 23' or 'telnet <target> 23'.
    Affected if The installed Telnet server version falls within any known affected version range (compare against vendor advisories for this CVE).
  3. Confirm Telnet port accessibility
    Verify that TCP port 23 (or custom Telnet port) is listening and reachable. Run 'netstat -tuln | grep 23' or 'ss -tuln | grep 23' to confirm listening status. From an internal test host, confirm reachability: 'nmap -p 23 <target IP>' or 'telnet <target IP> 23'.
    Affected if Telnet port is open and accessible from internal network segments.
  4. Check for concurrent connection handling
    Review system logs for evidence of Telnet connection handling issues. On Linux: 'journalctl -u telnet' or check /var/log/syslog for 'telnet' entries. Monitor active connections during normal operation: 'netstat -an | grep :23' or 'ss -an | grep :23'.
    Affected if System exhibits instability, crashes, or service interruption when two Telnet connections are established simultaneously (this would require testing in an isolated environment to confirm).

The system is likely affected if Telnet is enabled, accessible from the internal network, and the installed version matches the vulnerable range - the specific exploit requires two concurrent Telnet connections to trigger the DoS condition.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

If Telnet is not required, disable the service entirely. If required, restrict network access to the Telnet port to trusted internal systems only and monitor for unusual connection patterns.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22542 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-22542 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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