Memory Buffer Bounds ErrorWeakness · CWE-119

CVE-2026-9401

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-24
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-6675nD 1.12. Impacted is the function formWanTcpipSetup of the file /goform/formWanTcpipSetup of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument pppUserName leads to buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated 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 · moderate confidence

Buffer overflow vulnerability in Edimax BR-6675nD router firmware version 1.12 in the POST request handler for WAN TCP/IP settings. The pppUserName parameter in the /goform/formWanTcpipSetup form is not properly bounds-checked, allowing remote attackers to overflow a buffer and potentially execute arbitrary code.

MitigationThis is a legacy consumer router that appears unpatched since the vendor did not respond to disclosure. Recommended remediation is to replace the device with a currently supported router. If replacement is not feasible, implement network segmentation and external firewall rules to restrict access to the router's web management interface.

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. Confirm device model is Edimax BR-6675nD
    Access the router's web admin interface and check the device information page, or check the device label/markings for the model number BR-6675nD
    Affected if The device is not an Edimax BR-6675nD router - if it is a different model, this specific CVE does not apply
  2. Check firmware version is 1.12
    In the router web interface, navigate to Status or System Info page and locate the firmware version field. Compare the displayed version to 1.12
    Affected if The firmware version is exactly 1.12 - other versions may have different vulnerabilities or may have fixed this issue
  3. Verify web administrative interface is accessible
    Attempt to access the router's IP address on ports 80 or 443 from the network segment you are checking. Confirm the /goform/formWanTcpipSetup endpoint responds to HTTP requests
    Affected if The web interface is accessible on the network and the vulnerable endpoint responds to requests - this is required for exploitation
  4. Check if remote administrative access is enabled
    In the router web interface under Administration or Remote Management settings, determine if remote access to the web interface is permitted from external IP addresses
    Affected if Remote management/remote access to the admin web interface is enabled - this increases exposure since the vulnerability is remotely exploitable

You are affected if you are running an Edimax BR-6675nD router with firmware version 1.12 that has its web administrative interface accessible, especially if remote management is enabled.

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

This is a legacy consumer router that appears unpatched since the vendor did not respond to disclosure. Recommended remediation is to replace the device with a currently supported router. If replacement is not feasible, implement network segmentation and external firewall rules to restrict access to the router's web management interface.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $3,050
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,880.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9401 — 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-2026-9401 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