CVE-2026-26073
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 · uneditedEVerest is an EV charging software stack. Versions prior to 2026.02.0 have a data race leading to possible `std::queue`/`std::deque` corruption. The trigger is powermeter public key update and EV session/error events (while OCPP not started). This results in a TSAN data race report and an ASAN/UBSAN misaligned address runtime error being observed. Version 2026.02.0 contains a patch.
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 confidenceA data race vulnerability in EVerest EV charging software versions prior to 2026.02.0 allows concurrent access to std::queue/std::deque during powermeter public key updates and EV session/error events while OCPP is not started, leading to memory corruption detectable by TSAN, ASAN, and UBSAN.
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< 2026.02.0CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 EVerest installation versionRun 'everest --version' or check the installed package version using the system package manager (e.g., dpkg, rpm, or pip list depending on installation method)Affected if The installed version is prior to 2026.02.0 or the version cannot be determined (indicating an older installation)
-
Confirm powermeter module is in useInspect the EVerest configuration file (typically config.yaml in the installation or deployment directory) for the powermeter module configurationAffected if The powermeter module is configured and enabled in the EVerest setup
-
Verify OCPP statusCheck if the OCPP (Open Charge Point Protocol) service or module is not started or is disabled. This may be indicated by the OCPP-related logs or configuration stateAffected if OCPP is not running or is disabled in the current deployment configuration
-
Search for evidence of memory corruptionReview system logs, ASAN/TSAN/UBSAN reports, or coredumps for memory corruption indicators related to std::queue or std::deque operations in powermeter or EV session handling codeAffected if Memory corruption symptoms are present in logs or sanitizers reports mentioning the affected code paths
The environment is affected if EVerest version is below 2026.02.0, the powermeter module is in use, and OCPP is not started, exposing the race condition window.
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 data2026.02.0
Upgrade to EVerest version 2026.02.0 or later which contains the patch for proper synchronization between the affected code paths.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-26073 — 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-2026-26073 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