CVE-2026-9463
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 flaw has been found in Edimax EW-7438RPn 1.31. Affected by this issue is the function formLicence of the file /goform/formLicence. This manipulation of the argument submit-url causes stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published 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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Edimax EW-7438RPn v1.31 WiFi range extender. The formLicence function in /goform/formLicence does not properly bounds-check the submit-url parameter before copying it to a fixed-size stack buffer, allowing remote attackers to overwrite return addresses and achieve code execution.
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.
-
Identify the device modelCheck the device label, web interface header, or SNMP/sysinfo response for the model name 'EW-7438RPn'Affected if The device is not an Edimax EW-7438RPn, then it is not affected by this specific CVE
-
Check the firmware versionAccess the device web interface and navigate to System Settings > Firmware Upgrade, or query /goform/formSysInfo, and identify the firmware version numberAffected if The firmware version is v1.31 (the only affected version listed)
-
Confirm web interface is accessibleAttempt to reach the device HTTP/HTTPS web interface on the LAN or WAN IP addressAffected if The web interface is not reachable, the attack surface does not exist, but the device is still vulnerable if upgraded or downgraded to v1.31
-
Check for the vulnerable form endpointSend an HTTP GET request to http://[deviceIP]/goform/formLicence and observe if the page loads or returns a responseAffected if The endpoint exists and responds, indicating the vulnerable handler is present
The environment is affected only if the device is an Edimax EW-7438RPn running firmware v1.31 with the web interface accessible and the /goform/formLicence endpoint available.
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 the vendor did not respond and no firmware update is available, implement network segmentation to isolate the device behind a firewall restricting HTTP access, or replace the device with a supported alternative.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9463 — 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-2026-9463 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