CVE-2026-38719
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 · uneditedOpENer v2.3-558-g1e99582 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the Common Packet Format (CPF) parser, specifically in CreateCommonPacketFormatStructure() in source/src/enet_encap/cpf.c. A crafted ENIP/CPF message can supply an attacker-controlled item_count value that is not consistently validated against the remaining data_length of the CPF slice
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 confidenceOpENer v2.3-558-g1e99582 contains an out-of-bounds read in the CPF parser's CreateCommonPacketFormatStructure() function. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of the attacker-supplied item_count value against the remaining data_length in the CPF message slice, allowing reading beyond buffer bounds when processing crafted ENIP/CPF messages.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 if OpENer is installedCheck for OpENer binary or service: which Openner, find / -name '*opener*' 2>/dev/null, or check running processes for opener-related servicesAffected if OpENer software is present on the system and running as a network service
-
Determine OpENer versionCheck version string in binary or source: opener --version, or inspect binary metadata, or check installed package version if managed via package managerAffected if Version is v2.3-558-g1e99582 or any version built from commit 1e99582 (this specific commit contains the vulnerability)
-
Verify ENIP service is exposedCheck listening ports: netstat -tulpn | grep -E '44818|2222' (common ENIP ports), or review firewall rules and service configuration for ENIP/CIP exposureAffected if OpENer is listening on network ports and accepts ENIP/CPF messages from untrusted sources
-
Confirm CPF parsing is enabledReview OpENer configuration files for ENIP server settings, typically in config.ini or startup scripts, and verify the CIP connection path is activeAffected if OpENer is configured to accept CIP/ENIP connections and process CPF messages from network clients
-
Inspect ENIP message handling logsReview application logs for incoming ENIP/CPF message handling, if logging is enabled check for CreateCommonPacketFormatStructure function callsAffected if Logs show processing of ENIP CPF messages from external endpoints without evidence of input validation
You are affected if OpENer v2.3-558-g1e99582 is running and exposed to network traffic, as the vulnerability is triggered during CPF message parsing of attacker-supplied item_count values against data_length.
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 validation of item_count against available data_length before parsing CPF items. Add bounds checking to ensure the declared item count does not exceed the actual data available in the CPF slice.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-38719 — 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-2026-38719 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