Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-32706 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Dronecode Px4 Drone Autopilot. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 23th 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-2026-32706 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120, CWE-787) in the crsf_rc parser of PX4 Autopilot, an open-source flight control solution for drones. In versions prior to 1.17.0-rc2, the parser accepts oversized variable-length packets and copies them into a fixed 64-byte global buffer without performing bounds checks, leading to potential memory corruption. The issue was published on 2026-03-16 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H), emphasizing high availability impact with low integrity disruption.
An adjacent or raw-serial attacker can exploit this vulnerability in deployments where crsf_rc is enabled on a CRSF serial port. By sending a malicious oversized packet, the attacker triggers memory corruption, reliably crashing the PX4 system and potentially disrupting drone operations. No privileges, user interaction, or remote network access are required, but physical or adjacent proximity to the serial interface is necessary.
The official GitHub security advisory (GHSA-mqgj-hh4g-fg5p) confirms the vulnerability is fixed in PX4 Autopilot version 1.17.0-rc2. Security practitioners should ensure deployments upgrade to this version or later, disable crsf_rc on exposed CRSF ports if feasible, and monitor serial interfaces for anomalous traffic.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-12150
Vulnerability Data
PX4 autopilot is a flight control solution for drones. Prior to 1.17.0-rc2, The crsf_rc parser accepts an oversized variable-length known packet and copies it into a fixed 64-byte global buffer without a bounds check. In deployments where crsf_rc is enabled…
more
on a CRSF serial port, an adjacent/raw-serial attacker can trigger memory corruption and crash PX4. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.17.0-rc2.
- 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.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
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.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.