CVE-2026-9479
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 vulnerability has been detected in Edimax EW-7438RPn 1.31. The affected element is the function formLogout of the file /goform/formLogout. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to stack-based buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack 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 confidenceA stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the formLogout function of the Edimax EW-7438RPn v1.31 wireless range extender's web interface. The overflow occurs in the /goform/formLogout endpoint when processing the submit-url parameter without proper bounds checking, allowing remote attackers to overwrite stack memory and potentially execute arbitrary code.
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 device modelAccess the device admin interface or check the device label/marketing materials to confirm the model is Edimax EW-7438RPnAffected if Device model is Edimax EW-7438RPn
-
Check firmware versionLog into the web interface and navigate to the System Status or Firmware Upgrade page to view the current firmware version, or use the device's serial console if available to query the versionAffected if Firmware version is v1.31 or falls within the affected range for this model
-
Verify web interface is accessibleAttempt to reach the device's web interface via HTTP/HTTPS on the typical management port (usually 80 or 443) from an authorized network locationAffected if The web management interface is exposed and reachable on the network
-
Confirm formLogout endpoint existsSend an HTTP GET or POST request to http://[device-ip]/goform/formLogout and observe if the device responds to this endpointAffected if The /goform/formLogout endpoint responds to requests (indicating the vulnerable function is present)
-
Check submit-url parameter handlingIf authorized and safe to do so in a test environment, examine whether the formLogout function accepts a submit-url parameter and processes it without proper bounds checkingAffected if The submit-url parameter is accepted and processed by the formLogout function
The device is affected if it is an Edimax EW-7438RPn running firmware v1.31 (or an affected version) with the web interface accessible and the /goform/formLogout endpoint 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 the vendor has not responded and no patch is available, the primary mitigation is to disable the device's web management interface and implement network access controls to restrict exposure. If continued use is required, place the device in an isolated network segment and monitor for exploitation attempts.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9479 — 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-2026-9479 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