CVE-2026-37227
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 reachable assert(0) calls in stub message handlers for whitelisted but unimplemented E2AP message types in the near-RT RIC. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a decodable E2AP PDU of such a type (e.g., E2nodeConfigurationUpdate) to crash the near-RT RIC process (port 36421) via SIGABRT. The message passes whitelist validation but triggers an unconditional assertion in the handler.
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 near-RT RIC contains stub message handlers for whitelisted but unimplemented E2AP message types (e.g., E2nodeConfigurationUpdate) that contain unconditional assert(0) calls. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a decodable E2AP PDU of these types to port 36421; the message passes whitelist validation but triggers the assertion, causing SIGABRT and process crash.
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.
-
Confirm FlexRIC is runningCheck for flexric or near-RT RIC processes on the host (e.g., ps aux | grep -i flexric or check service status)Affected if FlexRIC service is active on the system
-
Identify FlexRIC versionCheck installed package version or binary version (e.g., rpm -q flexric, dpkg -l flexric, or flexric --version if available)Affected if Version is 2.0.0 or falls within the near-RT RIC v2.0.0 release line
-
Review E2AP message type whitelistExamine FlexRIC E2AP configuration files or source code to identify whitelisted message types (look for E2nodeConfigurationUpdate or similar whitelisting logic in e2ap/ric subdirectories)Affected if Whitelist contains E2nodeConfigurationUpdate or other unimplemented message types that have stub handlers with assert(0)
-
Check for crash evidenceReview system logs, application logs, or core dumps for SIGABRT signals originating from assert(0) in E2AP stub handlers (check /var/log/messages, journalctl, or application log directory)Affected if Recent crashes with SIGABRT correlate to E2AP message handling on ports 36411/36421
A user is affected if FlexRIC v2.0.0 is running with E2AP ports 36411/36421 exposed and whitelisted-but-unimplemented message types (like E2nodeConfigurationUpdate) are present, enabling remote unauthenticated attackers to trigger assert(0) and crash the service.
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(0) calls in unimplemented E2AP message handlers with proper error handling (e.g., returning an appropriate error response), or remove unimplemented message types from the whitelist until full implementation is available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-37227 — 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-2026-37227 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