Skip to content

CVE-2026-48683

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-48683 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
6.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

FastNetMon Community Edition through 1.2.9 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the NetFlow v9 data flowset processor. In src/netflow_plugin/netflow_v9_collector.cpp, the Data template branch (lines 1695-1702) iterates over flow records without performing a per-iteration bounds check against the packet end pointer. In contrast, the Options template branch (lines 1709-1719) correctly checks 'if (pkt + offset + field_template->total_length > packet_end)' before each iteration. The Data branch omits this check entirely. Since template definitions are sent by the network peer (and are unauthenticated UDP), an attacker can craft templates that cause the parser to read arbitrary memory past the packet buffer. This can leak sensitive memory contents or cause a crash.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-48683
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48683/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48683)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48683"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-48683/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-48683"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.