CVE-2026-9480
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 vulnerability was detected in Edimax EW-7438RPn 1.31. The impacted element is the function formrefresh of the file /goform/formrefresh. The manipulation of the argument submit-url results in stack-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now 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 · high confidenceStack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Edimax EW-7438RPn v1.31's web interface (formrefresh function in /goform/formrefresh). The submit-url parameter is not properly bounds-checked before being copied to a stack buffer, allowing remote attackers to overwrite return addresses and potentially achieve remote 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 modelAccess the device's web administration interface or check the physical device label to confirm it is an Edimax EW-7438RPn wireless range extenderAffected if The device is an Edimax EW-7438RPn
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the device web interface and navigate to the Status or System Settings page to locate the firmware version. Compare it to v1.31Affected if The firmware version is v1.31
-
Verify formrefresh endpoint is accessibleSend an HTTP request to http://<device-ip>/goform/formrefresh using curl or a browser. If a form or any response is returned, the endpoint is activeAffected if The /goform/formrefresh endpoint responds and accepts the submit-url parameter
-
Assess network exposureDetermine if the device management interface is reachable from untrusted networks. Use nmap from an external host or review firewall configurations to check if port 80/443 is exposed beyond the local networkAffected if The device web interface is accessible from outside the trusted local network segment
The environment is affected if it contains an Edimax EW-7438RPn running firmware v1.31 with the /goform/formrefresh endpoint exposed on the network.
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 is unresponsive and no patch exists, implement network segmentation to isolate the device, restrict access via firewall rules to only trusted management IPs, or replace the end-of-life device with a supported model.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9480 — 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-2026-9480 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