Memory Buffer Bounds ErrorWeakness · CWE-119

CVE-2026-7834

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-05
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A security vulnerability has been detected in EFM ipTIME NAS1dual 1.5.24. This issue affects the function get_csrf_whites of the file /cgi/advanced/misc_main.cgi. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

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 confidence

Stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the get_csrf_whites function of /cgi/advanced/misc_main.cgi on EFM ipTIME NAS1dual firmware version 1.5.24. The overflow occurs when processing input in the CSRF whitelist function, potentially allowing remote attackers to overwrite stack memory and execute arbitrary code. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable with network access to the web interface.

MitigationSince the vendor did not respond to disclosure, implement network segmentation to restrict access to the NAS management interface, consider disabling the affected CGI endpoint if possible through configuration, and monitor for firmware updates from ipTIME. If immediate mitigation is critical, restrict access to the web interface to trusted IP addresses only.

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
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm device model
    Access the NAS web interface or check the device label/metadata to verify the model is EFM ipTIME NAS1dual
    Affected if Device model is EFM ipTIME NAS1dual
  2. Check firmware version
    Navigate to the NAS admin panel (typically System Settings > Firmware or similar) or check via SSH/telnet if enabled to retrieve the installed firmware version
    Affected if Firmware version is 1.5.24 or if the version cannot be determined but the device is this model
  3. Verify web interface accessibility
    Confirm the NAS web interface (port 80/443) is reachable from the network - test with a browser or network scan (nmap) targeting the device IP
    Affected if The web management interface is network-accessible (not isolated behind firewall/VPN)
  4. Identify affected CGI endpoint
    Attempt to access /cgi/advanced/misc_main.cgi on the NAS (e.g., http://<device-ip>/cgi/advanced/misc_main.cgi) to confirm the endpoint exists and responds
    Affected if The CGI script /cgi/advanced/misc_main.cgi responds to requests

If the device is an EFM ipTIME NAS1dual running firmware version 1.5.24 and its web interface is network-accessible, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Since the vendor did not respond to disclosure, implement network segmentation to restrict access to the NAS management interface, consider disabling the affected CGI endpoint if possible through configuration, and monitor for firmware updates from ipTIME. If immediate mitigation is critical, restrict access to the web interface to trusted IP addresses only.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation24.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA6.0 h
50.0 hours of engineering $8,800
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,080.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7834 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-7834 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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