CVE-2026-13480

LOWPre-NVD 3.13.1
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This low-severity CVE scores 3.1 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.3% (16th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
3.1EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 3.1Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).

The LoRaWAN TS004 Fragmented Data Block Transport handler frag_transport_package_callback() in subsys/lorawan/services/frag_transport.c parses downlink command bytes without validating that enough payload bytes remain before each access. The loop's only bound is rx_pos < len; after consuming the one-byte command id the handler cast rx_buf + rx_pos to a 10-byte struct frag_transport_setup_req, and for a DATA_FRAGMENT command passed &rx_buf[rx_pos] to the fragment decoder, which reads exactly ctx.frag_size bytes — with no remaining-length check in either case.

The fragment size is attacker-chosen in a preceding FRAG_SESSION_SETUP command (ctx.frag_size = req->frag_size, capped at CONFIG_LORAWAN_FRAG_TRANSPORT_MAX_FRAG_SIZE, default 232). rx_buf aliases the 255-byte static MacCtx.RxPayload buffer in the loramac-node MAC layer, while len is the actual decrypted payload length. By padding a downlink with mismatched-index DATA_FRAGMENT filler commands (each advancing rx_pos by three bytes without producing an answer) and appending one matching-index fragment near the end of the payload, an attacker can make the decoder read up to roughly frag_size bytes past the end of RxPayload, copying adjacent static memory into the decoder buffers and the FUOTA flash image.

The handler runs only on downlinks that have already passed the LoRaWAN frame MIC and FRMPayload decryption, so the defect is reachable only by a party holding the device's session keys (the FUOTA server or an attacker who has compromised those keys). The out-of-bounds bytes are never returned to the sender — the only uplink emitted is a status answer carrying fragment counts — so there is no direct disclosure channel, and on typical flat-memory LoRaWAN MCUs the over-read stays within mapped memory, making a crash unlikely. The impact is therefore a bounded out-of-bounds read with limited confidentiality consequence and no write or control-flow primitive. The fix adds remaining-length guards before each access.

CVSS v3
3.1
EG Score
3.1LOWmedium confidence
EG Risk
14
EG Risk 14/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity31% × 45%
The EG Score, 3.1 of 10.
Exploitation0.3% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.
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.
Action: A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it and apply that within your standard update timelines; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.
EPSS PROB
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
16th
KEV
Not listed

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.

A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it and apply that within your standard update timelines; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.

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.

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

Published

August 26, 2026

Last Modified

August 31, 2026

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 12× in last 7d / 33× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-13 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  2. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  4. 2026-10-11 20:11 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 18:23 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 14:57 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  8. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  9. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  10. 2026-10-09 03:27 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-08 17:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  12. 2026-10-07 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  13. 2026-10-06 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  14. 2026-10-06 02:28 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  16. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  17. 2026-10-03 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  18. 2026-10-03 04:09 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-01 19:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  20. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  21. 2026-09-30 06:08 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-09-29 15:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  23. 2026-09-28 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  24. 2026-09-27 05:50 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
Show 33 more
  1. 2026-09-24 07:07 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-09-23 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  3. 2026-09-21 09:06 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  5. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  6. 2026-09-18 11:06 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-09-16 05:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  8. 2026-09-15 13:05 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-13 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  10. 2026-09-12 15:05 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-09-12 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  12. 2026-09-11 14:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  13. 2026-09-11 09:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  14. 2026-09-10 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  15. 2026-09-09 17:03 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-09-08 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  17. 2026-09-07 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  18. 2026-09-06 19:03 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-09-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  20. 2026-09-04 05:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  21. 2026-09-03 21:01 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-09-01 13:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  23. 2026-09-01 04:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  24. 2026-08-31 22:57 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-08-30 19:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  26. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  27. 2026-08-29 15:05 UTCEG score recompute
  28. 2026-08-28 21:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  29. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  30. 2026-08-26 16:21 UTCEG score recompute
  31. 2026-08-26 15:49 UTCEG score recompute
  32. 2026-08-26 14:23 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 3.1 LOW
  33. 2026-08-26 14:22 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-13480?
CVE-2026-13480 is a low-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 26, 2026. The LoRaWAN TS004 Fragmented Data Block Transport handler fragtransportpackagecallback() in subsys/lorawan/services/fragtransport.c parses downlink command bytes without validating that enough payload bytes remain before each access. The loop's only bound is rxpos < len; after consuming the…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-13480 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-13480 was published on August 26, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 31, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-13480 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-13480 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (16th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-13480?
CVE-2026-13480 has a CVSS base score of 3.1 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-13480?
A fix for CVE-2026-13480 is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but EchelonGraph has no release containing it on record. Check that reference and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains the fix and update to it; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-13480

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-13480?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.