Memory Buffer Bounds ErrorWeakness · CWE-119

CVE-2026-8776

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-18
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable 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 vulnerability has been found in Edimax BR-6428NS 1.10. This vulnerability affects the function formPPTPSetup of the file /goform/formPPTPSetup of the component POST Request Handler. Such manipulation of the argument pptpUserName leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public 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 · high confidence

Buffer overflow vulnerability in Edimax BR-6428NS router firmware 1.10 allows remote attackers to overflow the pptpUserName buffer in the formPPTPSetup function via the POST request handler at /goform/formPPTPSetup. This is a classic input validation failure leading to stack-based buffer overflow.

MitigationSince the vendor is non-responsive and no patch exists, immediately restrict network exposure to the router's web interface, disable PPTP functionality if possible, and strongly consider replacing the end-of-life device with a supported model.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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. Identify the device model
    Check the router label or login to the web interface and look for the model number (typically displayed on the status page or in the system settings). Confirm it is Edimax BR-6428NS.
    Affected if The device is an Edimax BR-6428NS router.
  2. Determine the firmware version
    In the router web interface, navigate to the status or system information page and record the firmware version number displayed. Compare this version to the affected version 1.10.
    Affected if The installed firmware version is 1.10.
  3. Verify if PPTP functionality is configured
    In the router web interface, locate the PPTP settings (usually under Advanced or VPN settings). Check if a PPTP connection is configured or enabled, specifically looking for the pptpUserName field.
    Affected if PPTP is enabled and a username is configured in the PPTP settings.
  4. Check web interface network exposure
    Determine if the router web interface (port 80 or 443) is accessible from the internet or an untrusted network by attempting to access the IP address externally or reviewing firewall rules.
    Affected if The router web interface is exposed to untrusted networks.
  5. Inspect POST requests to the vulnerable endpoint
    If you have access to logs or traffic captures, look for POST requests sent to /goform/formPPTPSetup with a pptpUserName parameter. This is the specific attack vector.
    Affected if POST requests to /goform/formPPTPSetup with large pptpUserName values have been logged or observed.

You are affected if you own an Edimax BR-6428NS router running firmware 1.10 with PPTP functionality enabled and the router web interface is network-accessible.

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 is non-responsive and no patch exists, immediately restrict network exposure to the router's web interface, disable PPTP functionality if possible, and strongly consider replacing the end-of-life device with a supported model.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,970
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,152.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-8776 — 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-2026-8776 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