CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
highMemory Corruptionpublic exploit

CVE-2026-0993

CVE-2026-0993 — SODOLA SL902-SWTGW124AS Buffer Overflow DoS via Multipart Boundary Parser

SODOLA SL902-SWTGW124AS firmware before 200.2.12 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to cause a denial of service by sending an oversized boundary value in the Content-Type header of a crafted POST request. Attackers can exploit the embedded HTTP server's multipart/form-data boundary parser to cause the device to become fully unresponsive — dropping all management access and traffic forwarding during its self-recovery cycle.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, SODOLA (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

SODOLA

SL902-SWTGW124AS

CVSS base

7.5

high · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade SL902-SWTGW124AS to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
SODOLASL902-SWTGW124AS0 to <= 200.2.12Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.5CVSS 3.1high3.93.6NVD, SODOLA (CNA)
8.7CVSS 4.0high——SODOLA (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-120 · Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')

  • Modify Memory
  • Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
  • DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
  • DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)

Mitigation: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-120Classic Buffer Overflow

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-10 · Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-100 · Overflow BuffersCAPEC-14 · Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-24 · Filter Failure through Buffer OverflowCAPEC-42 · MIME ConversionCAPEC-44 · Overflow Binary Resource FileCAPEC-45 · Buffer Overflow via Symbolic LinksCAPEC-46 · Overflow Variables and TagsCAPEC-47 · Buffer Overflow via Parameter ExpansionCAPEC-67 · String Format Overflow in syslog()CAPEC-8 · Buffer Overflow in an API CallCAPEC-9 · Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

5

1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /form-data.
  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable SL902-SWTGW124AS.
  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 5 public PoC repositories were reported.
web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 7.5 (AV:N)

    Oct 15, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Oct 15, 2026 · NVD

  4. CVE published by NIST.

    Oct 15, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-0993 is SODOLA SL902-SWTGW124AS Buffer Overflow DoS via Multipart Boundary Parser, a high vulnerability affecting SL902-SWTGW124AS from SODOLA. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 5 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.