GHSA-29RM-WVWW-5GJV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-05 12:31 – Updated: 2026-08-05 12:31
VLAI
Details

nanoMODBUS through v1.23.0 contains an out-of-bounds write in the Modbus server-side handle_read_file_record() function (FC 0x14, Read File Record) in nanomodbus.c. The function validates that the total request size does not exceed 245 bytes and that each sub-request's record_length is at most 124, but it never validates the CUMULATIVE response size across all sub-requests before processing them. The accumulator response_data_size is declared as uint8_t and is incremented by 2 + record_length*2 for each of up to 35 sub-requests; with 35 sub-requests of record_length=124, the cumulative demand is 8750 bytes, which overflows the uint8_t accumulator. A subsequent loop then calls get_n(), an internal function with no bounds checking, once per sub-request to obtain a pointer into the 260-byte msg.buf receive buffer and advances the internal buf_idx by up to 248 bytes per call; swap_regs() then writes to that pointer unconditionally. A single crafted FC 0x14 request from an unauthenticated network client can cause up to ~8490 bytes to be written out of bounds past the 260-byte buffer, corrupting adjacent memory in the server process and leading to denial of service or potential remote code execution, particularly on embedded/bare-metal targets without memory protection.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-71254"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-787"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-05T12:18:57Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "nanoMODBUS through v1.23.0 contains an out-of-bounds write in the Modbus server-side handle_read_file_record() function (FC 0x14, Read File Record) in nanomodbus.c. The function validates that the total request size does not exceed 245 bytes and that each sub-request\u0027s record_length is at most 124, but it never validates the CUMULATIVE response size across all sub-requests before processing them. The accumulator response_data_size is declared as uint8_t and is incremented by 2 + record_length*2 for each of up to 35 sub-requests; with 35 sub-requests of record_length=124, the cumulative demand is 8750 bytes, which overflows the uint8_t accumulator. A subsequent loop then calls get_n(), an internal function with no bounds checking, once per sub-request to obtain a pointer into the 260-byte msg.buf receive buffer and advances the internal buf_idx by up to 248 bytes per call; swap_regs() then writes to that pointer unconditionally. A single crafted FC 0x14 request from an unauthenticated network client can cause up to ~8490 bytes to be written out of bounds past the 260-byte buffer, corrupting adjacent memory in the server process and leading to denial of service or potential remote code execution, particularly on embedded/bare-metal targets without memory protection.",
  "id": "GHSA-29rm-wvww-5gjv",
  "modified": "2026-08-05T12:31:33Z",
  "published": "2026-08-05T12:31:33Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-71254"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/debevv/nanoMODBUS"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/debevv/nanoMODBUS/blob/master/nanomodbus.c"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Events included in the timeline

Loading timeline…


    Loading…

    Loading…

    Loading…

    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.