Memory Buffer Bounds ErrorWeakness · CWE-119

CVE-2026-9461

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-25
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 security vulnerability has been detected in Edimax EW-7438RPn 1.31. Affected is the function formRadius of the file /goform/formRadius. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated 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

A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the formRadius function of Edimax EW-7438RPn v1.31 firmware. The submit-url parameter is not properly bounds-checked before being copied to a stack-allocated buffer, allowing remote attackers to overflow the buffer and potentially execute arbitrary code.

MitigationSince Edimax did not respond to early disclosure, replace the affected device with a supported model or implement strict network segmentation to limit exposure; monitor for exploitation attempts given public exploit availability.

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 EW-7438RPn
    Access the device's web management interface or check the device label/documentation. Look for 'EW-7438RPn' in the device identification.
    Affected if The device is not an Edimax EW-7438RPn model, then it is not affected by this specific vulnerability.
  2. Check firmware version
    In the web interface, navigate to System Settings or Status page to view the firmware version. The vulnerable version is v1.31.
    Affected if The firmware version is v1.31, then the device is running the affected version.
  3. Verify web management interface is accessible
    Attempt to access the device's HTTP/HTTPS management interface (typically at the device's IP address on port 80 or 443).
    Affected if The web management interface is exposed and reachable, the formRadius function could potentially be exploited.
  4. Check if formRadius endpoint responds
    Send an HTTP POST request to /goform/formRadius with the 'submit-url' parameter. This is the vulnerable endpoint.
    Affected if The /goform/formRadius endpoint accepts the 'submit-url' parameter and does not properly validate its length, indicating the vulnerability is present.

The device is affected if it is an Edimax EW-7438RPn running firmware v1.31 with the web management interface accessible and the formRadius endpoint accepting the vulnerable 'submit-url' parameter.

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 Edimax did not respond to early disclosure, replace the affected device with a supported model or implement strict network segmentation to limit exposure; monitor for exploitation attempts given public exploit availability.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,800
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,480.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9461 — 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-2026-9461 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