Stack-based Buffer OverflowWeakness · CWE-121

CVE-2026-30364

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-15
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
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
CentSDR commit e40795 was discovered to contain a stack overflow in the "Thread1" function.

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 stack overflow vulnerability exists in CentSDR at commit e40795 within the Thread1 function. The stack overflow indicates insufficient bounds checking when handling input data, allowing an attacker to overwrite stack memory and potentially execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service.

MitigationImplement proper bounds checking and use safe memory functions (e.g., strncpy, memcpy with size limits) when handling data in Thread1. Validate all input sizes against buffer allocations before copy operations.

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
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 checks

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

  1. Confirm CentSDR installation
    Identify if CentSDR is installed on the system by searching for executable files, libraries, or installation directories associated with CentSDR (e.g., 'which centsdr', check common installation paths like /usr/local/bin, /opt, or user's home directory)
    Affected if CentSDR is found on the system
  2. Determine CentSDR version or commit
    Retrieve the installed version or git commit hash of CentSDR using version flags (e.g., 'centsdr --version'), checking binary metadata, or examining source code if locally compiled
    Affected if The installed commit hash is e40795 or an earlier commit (vulnerable) or version cannot be determined but Thread1 function is present
  3. Verify Thread1 function presence
    Inspect the CentSDR binary or source code for the presence of the Thread1 function (e.g., use 'nm' or 'objdump' on binary, or grep for 'Thread1' in source files)
    Affected if Thread1 function exists in the build and is compiled into the binary
  4. Check if input handling is reachable
    Determine if CentSDR is configured to accept external input or network data that flows to the Thread1 function (e.g., review configuration files, check if SDR hardware interface or network ports are enabled)
    Affected if External input sources or network interfaces are enabled and route data to Thread1 without sanitization
  5. Inspect build configuration for vulnerable code path
    Review build configuration or source code around commit e40795 to confirm the stack overflow vulnerability exists in the specific code path used by Thread1 (examine input buffer handling in Thread1 implementation)
    Affected if The code path handling input data in Thread1 lacks bounds checking before buffer operations

A user is affected if CentSDR is installed with a commit at or before e40795 and the Thread1 function handles external or untrusted input data without proper bounds validation.

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

Implement proper bounds checking and use safe memory functions (e.g., strncpy, memcpy with size limits) when handling data in Thread1. Validate all input sizes against buffer allocations before copy operations.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-30364 — 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-2026-30364 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