Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-24115 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Tenda W20E Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 50th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-24115, published on 2026-03-02, is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) affecting the Tenda W20E router running firmware version V4.0br_V15.11.0.6. The flaw occurs due to a failure to validate the sizes of the `gstup` and `gstdwn` parameters before concatenating them into `gstruleQos`, which can trigger a buffer overflow. It carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity.
Remote attackers with network access can exploit this vulnerability without authentication, privileges, or user interaction and with low complexity. Successful exploitation enables high-impact compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution, data theft, or denial of service on the affected device.
Mitigation guidance and patches are detailed in the vendor advisory at https://www.tenda.com.cn/material/show/2707, with additional analysis available in a CVE report on GitHub at https://github.com/akuma-QAQ/CVEreport/tree/main/D-link/CVE-2026-24115.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9187
Vulnerability Data
An issue was discovered in Tenda W20E V4.0br_V15.11.0.6. Failure to validate the sizes of `gstup` and `gstdwn` before concatenating them into `gstruleQos` may lead to buffer overflow.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.