Meshtastic is an open source mesh networking solution.
CVE-2026-42566 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in firmware from Meshtastic, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected firmware versions: < 2.7.23.b246bcd. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.49% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of firmware you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meshtastic | firmware | < 2.7.23.b246bcd | Not stated |
| Meshtastic | Meshtastic Firmware | 2.7.22 and earlier | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- NoneNo data is disclosed.
- Integrity
- NoneNothing can be modified.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
Meshtastic is an open source mesh networking solution. Prior to version 2.7.23.b246bcd, a single node advertising a User.long_name that contains a malformed character encoding can render other radios unusable over BLE when managed through the iOS app. The malformed name does not need to be maliciously crafted — it can arise from ordinary buffer truncation and has been observed occurring naturally in the wild. At least one code path could place a null terminator in the middle of a multibyte sequence, leaving a malformed User.long_name in the node database. The problem surfaced downstream: the iOS app enforced encoding validation and therefore cannot parse a node database once it contains a poisoned entry. This caused BLE sync to enter a fail/retry loop, resulting in loss of control over the affected device. For a typical user managing their radio with the iOS app, the device becomes effectively unusable until the poisoned node ages out of the on-device database, or unless they have an alternate management path (e.g., the Python CLI, which can be used to identify and remove the offending entries manually). Because the malformed name propagates through the mesh, the temporary presence of a single affected node can degrade BLE management for iOS users across a wide geographical area for an extended period. Less technical users have no straightforward recovery path. Starting in version 2.7.23.b246bcd, the firmware has added input sanitization and regression tests demonstrating recovery for already-poisoned devices. The apps have also taken steps to ensure more graceful handling of malformed encoding sequences as well.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in firmware
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.0 High severity
- 8.3 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 8.2 High severity
- 8.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.0 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.