CVE-2026-38891
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 · uneditedAn improper input validation in the gazebo_ros_diff_drive.cpp component of gazebo_plugins v3.9.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via supplying a crafted geometry_msgs::Twist message.
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 confidenceThe gazebo_ros_diff_drive.cpp component in gazebo_plugins v3.9.0 lacks proper input validation when processing geometry_msgs::Twist messages. Attackers can send crafted Twist messages with malicious or out-of-bounds values for linear/angular velocity parameters, causing the differential drive plugin to crash or hang, resulting in 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 gazebo_plugins installationLocate the gazebo_plugins package in your ROS workspace or system installation (typically in /opt/ros/<distro>/lib or workspace/lib). Run 'rospack find gazebo_plugins' or check your package manifest.Affected if gazebo_plugins package is not installed in your environment
-
Determine gazebo_plugins versionCheck the package version via 'dpkg -l ros-*gazebo-plugins*' (Debian) or inspect the CMakeLists.txt / package.xml for the version tag, typically showing v3.9.0 or release version.Affected if Version is 3.9.0 or the version string contains '3.9.0'
-
Verify diff_drive plugin is loadedInspect your ROS launch files or URDF/xacro files for usage of '<plugin name="gazebo_ros_diff_drive" ...>' or gazebo_ros_diff_drive plugin loading configurations.Affected if The gazebo_ros_diff_drive plugin is loaded and active in your simulation
-
Confirm topic subscription exposureCheck if the diff_drive plugin subscribes to a ROS topic (default 'cmd_vel') that accepts geometry_msgs::Twist messages. Run 'rostopic info /cmd_vel' or inspect your plugin parameters for 'commandTopic'.Affected if The cmd_vel or configured command topic is published by an external source (network, bridge, or untrusted node)
-
Inspect Twist input handlingReview the gazebo_ros_diff_drive.cpp source code in your installed package for bounds checking on linear.x/y/z and angular.x/y/z fields before they are applied to the differential drive model.Affected if No explicit bounds validation or sanitization is present in the code processing Twist messages
You are affected if you use gazebo_plugins version 3.9.0 with the diff_drive plugin loaded and exposed to external Twist message input, and the code lacks input bounds validation.
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 rigorous input validation for all Twist message fields (linear.x/y/z, angular.x/y/z) with bounds checking and sanitization before processing. Consider adding rate limiting on the subscriber to prevent rapid message flooding.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,568.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-38891 — 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-2026-38891 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