CVE-2026-32713
Dronecode Px4 Drone Autopilot ≤ 1.17.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-32713 is a medium-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Dronecode Px4 Drone Autopilot. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 32th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-12174
Vulnerability Data
PX4 autopilot is a flight control solution for drones. Prior to 1.17.0-rc2, A logic error in the PX4 Autopilot MAVLink FTP session validation uses incorrect boolean logic (&& instead of ||), allowing BurstReadFile and WriteFile operations to proceed with invalid…
more
sessions or closed file descriptors. This enables an unauthenticated attacker to put the FTP subsystem into an inconsistent state, trigger operations on invalid file descriptors, and bypass session isolation checks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.17.0-rc2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.
Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.
Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.
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 SDLC practices directly prevent incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.
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.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect paths that deviate from intended logic.
Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.
Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.