CVE-2026-22854
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 · uneditedFreeRDP is a free implementation of the Remote Desktop Protocol. Prior to 3.20.1, a heap-buffer-overflow occurs in drive read when a server-controlled read length is used to read file data into an IRP output stream buffer without a hard upper bound, allowing an oversized read to overwrite heap memory. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.20.1.
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 heap-buffer-overflow vulnerability exists in FreeRDP's drive read functionality where a server-controlled read length is used without a hard upper bound, allowing an oversized read to overwrite adjacent heap memory and potentially enable remote code execution.
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< 3.20.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Check FreeRDP installed versionRun 'freerdp-version' or check the version of the freerdp package installed via package manager (dpkg, rpm, brew, etc.)Affected if Installed version is less than 3.20.1
-
Identify FreeRDP client binaries in useLocate freerdp client executables (xfreerdp, wfreerdp, etc.) on the system using 'which xfreerdp' or similar commandsAffected if Any FreeRDP client binary with version below 3.20.1 is in use
-
Inspect RDP connection configurationsReview saved .rdp files and command histories for connections that include drive redirection parameters (such as /drive:, /drives:, or Drive: directive)Affected if Drive redirection is configured in any RDP connection profile or command used with a vulnerable FreeRDP version
-
Check for active drive mappings in sessionsExamine running FreeRDP session parameters or logs for active drive redirection mountsAffected if A drive redirection session is active or was recently used with vulnerable version of FreeRDP
Environment is affected if FreeRDP version is below 3.20.1 AND drive redirection feature is enabled or has been used to connect to untrusted servers
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 · scoped3.20.1
Upgrade FreeRDP to version 3.20.1 or later to patch the heap-buffer-overflow. Until then, disable drive redirection features when connecting to untrusted servers.
3.20.1
- Check the currently installed FreeRDP version using `freerdp-version`, `xfreerdp -version`, or the system package manager
- Upgrade FreeRDP to version 3.20.1 or later via the appropriate package manager or by building from source
- Verify the installed version is 3.20.1 or higher to confirm the vulnerability is patched
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22854 — 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-2026-22854 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