CVE-2026-102713 (CVSS 8.8)
The TFTP server accepts a DATA datagram of any size. The dispatcher rejects datagrams shorter than four bytes (nxd_tftp_server.c:1037) and nothing anywhere checks an upper bound, in particular not against the protocol maximum of 4 + NX_TFTP_FILE_TRANSFER_MAX. Two things follow from that one missing check, both reachable before any authentication because TFTP has none. The handler passes `nx_packet_length - 4` straight to FileX: ```c /* addons/tftp/nxd_tftp_server.c:1863, 1889 */ status = nx_packet_copy(packet_ptr, &temp_ptr, server_ptr -> nx_tftp_server_packet_pool_ptr, NX_WAIT_FOREVER); ... fx_file_write(&(client_request_ptr -> nx_tftp_client_request_file), packet_ptr -> nx_packet_prepend_ptr + 4, packet_ptr -> nx_packet_length - 4); ``` `nx_packet_length` is the length of a chain, not of one contiguous buffer, so FileX copies past the end of the first packet: ``` ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow READ of size 1280 at 0x621000001108 thread T5 #0 __interceptor_memcpy #1 _fx_utility_memory_copy filex/common/src/fx_utility_memory_copy.c:78 0x621000001108 is 0 bytes to the right of 4104-byte region ``` Those bytes are written into the file the attacker is uploading, and a TFTP read request hands them back, so this is a memory disclosure with a convenient retrieval channel. The same datagram also wedges the server. `nx_packet_copy` at :1863 needs ceil(nx_packet_length / pool_payload) packets and asks for them with NX_WAIT_FOREVER, so when the attacker sizes the datagram beyond what the pool holds, the server thread suspends and never returns. A liveness probe after one such datagram times out with the pool at 0 of 12 packets and the server thread suspended, and no later client is served. Reject `nx_packet_length > 4 + NX_TFTP_FILE_TRANSFER_MAX` in the DATA branch before either call, and use a bounded wait rather than NX_WAIT_FOREVER for the copy.
Technical details
Evidence and sources
This record is attributed to NVD. Exploitation status and remediation guidance are kept separate from the vulnerability's technical severity.
Open primary source