dbcve.org
Reachable AssertionWeakness · CWE-617

CVE-2026-37221

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-01
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
FlexRIC v2.0.0 crashes when receiving a RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE with an unknown ric_id that has no corresponding pending event. The near-RT RIC uses assert() to enforce the existence of a pending event during response processing. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a forged RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE to the near-RT RIC (port 36421) to cause SIGABRT in Debug builds or NULL pointer dereference (SIGSEGV) in Release builds.

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 confidence

FlexRIC v2.0.0 lacks proper validation when processing RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE messages. When receiving a response with an unknown ric_id that has no corresponding pending event, the code proceeds to dereference a NULL pointer or hits an assert() in Debug builds, causing SIGSEGV or SIGABRT respectively. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a forged RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE to port 36421 to crash the near-RT RIC.

MitigationReplace assert() with proper error handling that validates the existence of a pending event before processing the response. Add input validation to reject RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE messages with unknown ric_id and implement graceful error handling instead of crashing.

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. Identify FlexRIC installation and version
    Locate the FlexRIC installation directory and check version information (e.g., look for version tags, README, or build artifacts indicating v2.0.0)
    Affected if FlexRIC v2.0.0 is installed or running
  2. Verify near-RT RIC service is exposed
    Check if port 36421 is open and listening (e.g., using netstat, ss, or nmap: netstat -tlnp | grep 36421)
    Affected if The near-RT RIC service is listening on port 36421, exposing RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE handling to network traffic
  3. Confirm RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE handler is active
    Inspect running processes or service configuration to confirm the near-RT RIC component that handles RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE messages is active
    Affected if The RIC subscription response handling module is enabled and processing messages
  4. Check for debug build configuration
    Inspect build configuration or binary to determine if this is a debug or release build (debug builds use assert() which triggers SIGABRT; release builds trigger NULL pointer dereference)
    Affected if Either build type is vulnerable - debug triggers SIGABRT, release triggers SIGSEGV on unknown ric_id
  5. Inspect pending event lookup logic
    Review source code or binary behavior when processing RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE with an unknown ric_id - verify no bounds checking exists before dereferencing pending event structures
    Affected if The code lacks proper input validation and will dereference a NULL pointer when ric_id has no corresponding pending event

A user is affected if FlexRIC v2.0.0 is running with the near-RT RIC service exposed on port 36421 and the RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE handler is active, regardless of debug or release build.

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

Replace assert() with proper error handling that validates the existence of a pending event before processing the response. Add input validation to reject RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_RESPONSE messages with unknown ric_id and implement graceful error handling instead of crashing.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
8.0 hours of engineering $1,420
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-37221 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-37221 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