Any host on the LAN can send two mDNS records and make the responder write past the end of its
transmit packet.
The string table stores each name in a slot rounded up to a multiple of four:
/* addons/mdns/nxd_mdns.c:11436, 11443, 11447 */memory_len = ((memory_len & 0xFFFFFFFC) + 8) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
...
len = *((USHORT*)(p - 2)); /* slot size, not string length */
if ((len == memory_len) && ... _nx_mdns_name_match(start, memory_ptr, memory_size) ...)
The lookup that decides whether an incoming name is already stored compares the rounded slot size,
so names of 12, 13, 14 and 15 characters share one bucket. A second name in the bucket is answered
with the pointer to the first, and the record then carries a string up to three bytes longer than
the length the caller accounted for. _nx_mdns_packet_rr_add (nxd_mdns.c:8911) sizes its only
bound check from that stale length, and _nx_mdns_name_string_encode writes the real string.
Two PTR records are enough, both ordinary mDNS responses to a _http._tcp query, with owner names
whose lengths fall in the same bucket:
==87491==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflowWRITE of size 1 at 0x611000000124 thread T5
#0 _nx_mdns_name_string_encode addons/mdns/nxd_mdns.c:13096
#1 _nx_mdns_packet_rr_add addons/mdns/nxd_mdns.c:8911
0x611000000124 is 0 bytes to the right of 228-byte region
The overflow is one to three bytes of attacker-influenced name data past nx_packet_data_end. In a
normal pool that lands in the next packet in the same pool rather than in a redzone, so the visible
effect is a corrupted neighbouring packet or a corrupted pool free list rather than a clean crash.
Compare the slot size against the stored string length before declaring a match, or keep the
string length in the slot header and return it to the caller so the encoder and the bound check
agree.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
No fix is confirmed yet. Check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it