CVE-2026-37223
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 · uneditedFlexRIC v2.0.0 contains a reachable assertion in the iApp message dispatcher. The dispatcher validates incoming E2AP messages against a 9-entry whitelist using assert(). A remote unauthenticated attacker can send any decodable E2AP PDU with a message type not in the whitelist to crash the iApp process (port 36422) via SIGABRT. Since iApp and the near-RT RIC share one process, this terminates the entire RIC service and disconnects all E2 Nodes and xApps.
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 confidenceFlexRIC v2.0.0 iApp message dispatcher uses assert() to validate incoming E2AP messages against a 9-entry whitelist. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a decodable E2AP PDU with a message type not in the whitelist, triggering the assertion failure and causing SIGABRT. Since iApp and the near-RT RIC share a process, this crashes the entire RIC service, disconnecting all E2 Nodes and xApps.
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify FlexRIC versionRun 'flexricd --version' or check package metadata, or examine binary strings for '2.0.0'Affected if Installed version is exactly 2.0.0 or falls within the 2.0.x branch before patching
-
Verify iApp component is runningCheck process list for 'iapp' or 'flexric' daemon, or run 'netstat -tulnp | grep 36422' to confirm port 36422 is listeningAffected if iApp process is active and port 36422 is open for E2AP connections
-
Locate vulnerable whitelist codeSearch source code for 'assert' near E2AP message type validation, look for whitelist arrays of size 9, or grep for 'message_type' and 'whitelist' in iApp dispatcher filesAffected if Code contains assert()-based whitelist validation for E2AP message types
-
Confirm E2AP message handler configurationExamine E2AP handler configuration files or code to identify which message types are permitted, verify if whitelist contains exactly 9 entriesAffected if E2AP dispatcher uses a fixed whitelist array with 9 permitted message types and rejects others via assert()
-
Test for crash conditionSend a decodable E2AP PDU with a message type ID not in the whitelist to port 36422 (e.g., using custom E2AP sender or modified srsRAN/NextE2PCAP tool)Affected if iApp process terminates with SIGABRT and brings down the near-RT RIC service
Environment is affected if FlexRIC version 2.0.0 is running with iApp listening on port 36422 and the assert()-based whitelist validation code is present, allowing a remote attacker to crash the RIC by sending any E2AP message type outside the 9-entry whitelist.
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 dataReplace assert() with proper error handling (return error codes) in the E2AP message dispatcher whitelist validation. Implement graceful handling of non-whitelisted message types that logs the event and drops the message instead of terminating the process.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-37223 — 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-2026-37223 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