CVE-2026-37225
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 crashes when the iApp receives an E42_RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_REQUEST with an empty ricEventTriggerDefinition field. The E42 layer decoder accepts this as valid, but the E2AP encoder asserts a non-empty constraint when forwarding the request. A remote unauthenticated attacker can crash the iApp process (port 36422) via SIGABRT by exploiting this cross-layer validation mismatch.
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 contains a cross-layer validation mismatch where the E42_RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_REQUEST decoder accepts empty ricEventTriggerDefinition fields, but the downstream E2AP encoder asserts this field must be non-empty. When forwarding such requests, the assertion failure triggers SIGABRT, causing the iApp process to crash. A remote unauthenticated attacker can exploit this by sending malformed requests to port 36422 to cause denial of service.
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 installation and versionLook for FlexRIC binaries or source code (e.g., ric-xapp, e2agent, or similar components). Check version strings in binaries, or if building from source, inspect the version tag in the repository or build configuration files.Affected if The installed version is FlexRIC v2.0.0 specifically.
-
Verify the iApp process is runningRun 'ps aux | grep -i flexric' or 'ps aux | grep -i ric' to find the running iApp process associated with FlexRIC.Affected if The FlexRIC iApp process is running (crash would cause this process to terminate unexpectedly).
-
Confirm port 36422 is listeningRun 'netstat -tlnp | grep 36422' or 'ss -tlnp | grep 36422' to check if the E2AP service port is open and listening.Affected if Port 36422 is open and accepting connections, exposing the vulnerable E2AP encoder to network requests.
-
Check E42 decoder configurationInspect the FlexRIC configuration files or runtime settings for the E42 RIC subscription handler. Look for any settings related to ricEventTriggerDefinition validation or subscription request processing.Affected if The E42 decoder is enabled and configured to process RIC_SUBSCRIPTION_REQUEST messages without validating ricEventTriggerDefinition is non-empty.
A user is affected if they are running FlexRIC v2.0.0 with the iApp process running and exposed on port 36422, where the E42 decoder processes subscription requests without validating the ricEventTriggerDefinition field.
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 dataImplement consistent input validation at the E42 decoder layer to reject empty ricEventTriggerDefinition fields before they reach the E2AP encoder, or modify the encoder to return a proper error response instead of asserting. Consider adding defensive null/empty checks and error handling to prevent crashes from malformed input.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-37225 — 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-2026-37225 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