CVE Intelligence
High Memory corruption

CVE-2026-102716 — Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime in Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo

An unauthenticated client can drain the RTSP server's packet pool with a couple of dozen requests that carry a Session header the parser cannot convert. The Session branch returns the raw NetX error code instead of an RTSP status code: ```c /* addons/rtsp/nx_rtsp_server.c:2754 */ status = _nx_utility_string_to_uint(field_value_ptr, field_value_length, &session_id); if (status) { return(status); /* NX_INVALID_PARAMETERS / NX_SIZE_ERROR / NX_OVERFLOW */ } ``` Every other branch of the same function maps its failure to an RTSP status first. The CSeq branch eighteen lines earlier does exactly that (line 2736 returns NX_RTSP_STATUS_CODE_BAD_REQUEST). The raw code then reaches `_nx_rtsp_server_error_response_send` (nx_rtsp_server.c:1234), which does not recognise it, takes a path that returns without releasing the response packet it already allocated, and the block never goes back to the pool. Six requests with an empty Session header against a 22 packet pool: ``` valid requests: after request 6: pool available = 21, AFTER = 22 / 22 malformed requests: after request 6: pool available = 16, AFTER = 17 / 22 ``` One block per request, not returned when the client disconnects. Twenty six requests take the pool to zero and the server starts failing allocations, after which it serves nobody. If the pool is shared with the rest of the application, as it is in the shipped sample, the rest of the stack stops with it. Convert the `_nx_utility_string_to_uint` failure in the Session branch into NX_RTSP_STATUS_CODE_BAD_REQUEST the way the CSeq branch does, and release the response packet on every exit path of `_nx_rtsp_server_error_response_send`.

Published Sep 29, 2026 · Updated Oct 16, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: eclipse

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

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

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
Eclipse Foundation
Threadx Netx Duo
CVSS base
8.7
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (memory corruption), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo ≤ 6.5.1 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
8.7 CVSS 4.0 High — — emo@eclipse.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.7 CVSS 4.0 High — — eclipse via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X (score shown at the top: emo@eclipse.org)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-401 · Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSendpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · eclipse foundation/eclipse-threadx/netxduo
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 8.7
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Sep 29, 2026 · eclipse

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

1 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Eclipse Foundation
every CVE for this vendor
Memory corruption
same class
CWE-401
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-103416 Out-of-bounds Write in Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo 8d
  • CVE-2026-102720 Out-of-bounds Read in Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo 16d
  • CVE-2026-102715 mDNS string-cache lookup matches on slot size, so a peer name aliases a shorter one and the response encoder writes past the packet 16d
  • CVE-2026-11576 The security fix for CVE-2025-0728 in eclipse-threadx NetX Duo refactors error handling… Jun 19, 2026
  • CVE-2025-55102 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo Jan 27, 2026
  • CVE-2025-55086 Out-of-bounds Read in Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo Oct 20, 2025

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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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 record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-102716 is "Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime in Eclipse Foundation Threadx Netx Duo", rated High. It affects Threadx Netx Duo (Eclipse Foundation); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.7 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.