Eclipse NetX Duo up to 6.5.1.202602 ICMPv6 Option Validation nx_icmpv6_validate_options.c _nx_icmpv6_validate_options out-of-bounds
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 10.0 | $0-$5k | 1.24- |
Summary
A vulnerability was found in Eclipse NetX Duo up to 6.5.1.202602. It has been rated as very critical. The impacted element is the function _nx_icmpv6_validate_options of the file common/src/nx_icmpv6_validate_options.c of the component ICMPv6 Option Validation. This manipulation causes out-of-bounds.
The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-102714. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.
Details
A vulnerability was found in Eclipse NetX Duo up to 6.5.1.202602. It has been declared as very critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function _nx_icmpv6_validate_options of the file common/src/nx_icmpv6_validate_options.c of the component ICMPv6 Option Validation. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a out-of-bounds vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-125. The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer. As an impact it is known to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:
`_nx_icmpv6_validate_options()` scans the option area with `while (length > 2)` (`common/src/nx_icmpv6_validate_options.c:79`). An area whose size leaves a one- or two-byte residue exits the loop with that tail unexamined; the residue is not negative, so the function returns `NX_SUCCESS`. Its zero-length rejection never sees those bytes. Every consumer then re-walks the same area, reading a two-byte option header at the residue and subtracting `nx_icmpv6_option_length << 3` with no zero check and no remaining-length check. Three outcomes follow, selected by bytes the attacker controls. **Zero length byte.** The walker subtracts zero and advances zero. All four handlers loop forever — `_nx_icmpv6_process_ra` (`nx_icmpv6_process_ra.c:245, :528`), `_nx_icmpv6_process_ns` (`:251, :329`), `_nx_icmpv6_process_na` (`:147, :156`) and `_nx_icmpv6_process_redirect` (`:247, :350`). The walk runs in the IP thread, which is the highest-priority thread and does not yield inside the loop, so the system stops until a watchdog reset and the frame can be replayed after each one. **Non-zero length byte on a short residue.** The three unsigned counters underflow — `2 - 8` becomes `0xFFFFFFFA` — and the walk continues past the packet buffer, reading until it faults or meets a zero length byte and freezes. The Router Advertisement counter is signed and exits cleanly in this case. **One-byte residue.** The walker reads a two-byte option header, over-reading one byte. During a runaway walk, stray bytes parsing as a link-layer address option are copied into the neighbor cache (`nx_icmpv6_process_ns.c:280, :293`) and subsequently used as the destination MAC for frames to that neighbour, placing off-packet memory on the link. Confirmed by inspection, not reproduced.
The advisory is shared at github.com. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-102714 since 09/29/2026. The exploitation appears to be easy. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploitation doesn't need any form of authentication. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available. The price for an exploit might be around USD $0-$5k at the moment (estimation calculated on 09/29/2026).
There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Product
Vendor
Name
Version
License
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔒VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CNA CVSS-B Score: 🔒
CNA CVSS-BT Score: 🔒
CNA Vector: 🔒
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 10.0VulDB Meta Temp Score: 10.0
VulDB Base Score: 10.0
VulDB Temp Score: 10.0
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Out-of-boundsCWE: CWE-125 / CWE-119
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: no mitigation knownStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔒
Timeline
09/29/2026 Advisory disclosed09/29/2026 CVE reserved
09/29/2026 VulDB entry created
09/29/2026 VulDB entry last update
Sources
Advisory: github.comStatus: Confirmed
CVE: CVE-2026-102714 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-102714
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-411649
Entry
Created: 09/29/2026 20:40Changes: 09/29/2026 20:40 (67)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.