CVE-2026-42920
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 Client SSL profile is configured with Allow Dynamic Record Sizing on a UDP virtual server, undisclosed traffic can cause the Traffic Management Microkernel (TMM) 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 · high confidenceThis is a F5 BIG-IP vulnerability where a Client SSL profile configured with 'Allow Dynamic Record Sizing' on a UDP virtual server can be exploited by undisclosed traffic to crash the Traffic Management Microkernel (TMM), causing denial of service.
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= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6= 21.0.0>= 17.1.0, <= 17.1.3>= 17.5.0, <= 17.5.1>= 16.1.0, <= 16.1.6CVSS 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.
-
Check the installed BIG-IP versionRun `tmsh show /sys version` or `show sys version` at the TMSH prompt. Note the displayed version number.Affected if The version matches = 21.0.0; >= 17.1.0 and <= 17.1.3; >= 17.5.0 and <= 17.5.1; or >= 16.1.0 and <= 16.1.6.
-
Identify Client SSL profiles with Allow Dynamic Record Sizing enabledRun `tmsh list /ltm profile client-ssl all-properties` and search for profiles where 'allow-dynamic-record-sizing' is set to 'enabled' or 'yes'.Affected if Any Client SSL profile has 'Allow Dynamic Record Sizing' explicitly enabled.
-
Identify UDP virtual serversRun `tmsh list /ltm virtual all-properties` and identify virtual servers where the 'ip-protocol' property is set to 'udp'.Affected if There are virtual servers configured to use UDP protocol.
-
Check which Client SSL profiles are attached to UDP virtual serversFor each UDP virtual server identified, examine the 'profiles' section to see if a Client SSL profile is attached. Cross-reference with the profiles found in step 2.Affected if A Client SSL profile with 'Allow Dynamic Record Sizing' enabled is attached to a UDP virtual server.
You are affected if your BIG-IP version is in the vulnerable range AND you have a Client SSL profile with 'Allow Dynamic Record Sizing' enabled attached to a UDP virtual server.
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.
dbcve · scopedDisable 'Allow Dynamic Record Sizing' on Client SSL profiles attached to UDP virtual servers, or upgrade to a patched version if available. Identify affected virtual servers through configuration review.
Upgrade to the next available maintenance release after your current version (16.1.7+, 17.1.4+, 17.5.2+, or 21.0.1+)
- 1. Identify the current BIG-IP version by running 'tmsh show sys version' on the command line
- 2. Download the appropriate patched version from the F5 Downloads portal (downloads.f5.com) based on your current major version (16.1.x, 17.1.x, 17.5.x, or 21.0.x)
- 3. Review the release notes for the target version to confirm the security fix for CVE-2026-42920 is included
- 4. Upload the ISO image to the BIG-IP device via the web interface (System > Software Management > Image List) or tmsh
- 5. Create a volume and install the new version: 'tmsh install sys software volume <volume-name> image <image-name>'
- 6. Reboot the BIG-IP device into the new volume to apply the fix
- 7. After upgrade, verify the Client SSL profile 'Allow Dynamic Record Sizing' setting on UDP virtual servers; if not needed, consider disabling it as a configuration alternative
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42920 — 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-2026-42920 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