Big Ip Access Policy ManagerApplication · F5
CVE-2026-40067
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 · uneditedWhen a BIG-IP APM access policy is configured on a virtual server, undisclosed traffic can cause the apmd process to terminate. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
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 confidenceThis is a denial of service vulnerability in F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM). When an APM access policy is configured on a virtual server, specially crafted undisclosed traffic can cause the apmd process to terminate, resulting in service disruption. The attack is network-based and does not require authentication.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Big Ip Access Policy ManagerApplication
>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1= 21.0.0CVSS 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.
-
Verify BIG-IP version is within affected rangeRun command: tmsh show /sys version / and look at the product version. Also check via GUI under iControl > System > Software Management > Software Images or use 'tmsh list sys version'Affected if Version matches 16.1.0-16.1.6, 17.1.0-17.1.3, 17.5.0-17.5.1, or 21.0.0 exactly
-
Confirm APM module is provisionedRun command: tmsh list /sys provision apm or check via GUI under System > Platform > Hardware > Resource ProvisioningAffected if APM shows as provisioned (not none or disabled)
-
Identify virtual servers with access policies configuredRun command: tmsh list /ltm virtual all properties access-policy or check via GUI under Local Traffic > Virtual Servers > [select each] > Access Policy tabAffected if Any virtual server has an access policy assigned (the access-policy field is not empty)
-
Verify apmd process is currently runningRun command: bigstart status apmd or ps aux | grep apmdAffected if apmd process is running (vulnerable condition present if version is affected)
System is affected if BIG-IP version is in the affected range AND APM is provisioned AND at least one virtual server has an access policy configured.
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 dataApply the F5 security update when available. Until then, consider restricting access to affected virtual servers via network segmentation or iRule filters to limit exposure to unknown traffic sources.
Fix this in Big Ip Access Policy Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-40067 — 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-2026-40067 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