CVE-2026-9360
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 · uneditedA security flaw has been discovered in Edimax EW-7438RPn 1.28a. Affected by this issue is the function formwlencrypt24g of the file /goform/formwlencrypt24g of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument key1 results in buffer overflow. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. 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 confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the Edimax EW-7438RPn WiFi extender firmware version 1.28a. The flaw is in the POST request handler at /goform/formwlencrypt24g, specifically in the formwlencrypt24g function where the key1 argument is not properly bounds-checked before being used, allowing an attacker to overflow a buffer and potentially execute arbitrary code remotely.
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm device is Edimax EW-7438RPnAccess the router web interface or check the device label to identify the exact model numberAffected if Device model is not Edimax EW-7438RPn
-
Check firmware versionLog into the router admin panel and locate the firmware version, usually found under System, Administration, or Status settingsAffected if Firmware version is 1.28a
-
Verify vulnerable endpoint existsAttempt to access or probe the URL path /goform/formwlencrypt24g on the deviceAffected if The endpoint responds to requests
-
Confirm wireless encryption settings are accessibleNavigate to the wireless security configuration page in the router interface where 2.4GHz encryption settings are managedAffected if The formwlencrypt24g function handles the key1 parameter
Device is affected if it is an Edimax EW-7438RPn running firmware version 1.28a with the /goform/formwlencrypt24g endpoint accessible and the wireless encryption settings page present.
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 dataSince Edimax has not responded to the disclosure, no vendor patch is available. Immediate mitigation includes restricting network access to the device's web interface via firewall rules, disabling remote management if possible, or replacing the device with a supported model.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,336.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9360 — 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-2026-9360 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