VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26025: free5gc smf · NULL Pointer Dereference

Affects free5gc smfSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.6 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.6Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: Unreported

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: Unreported: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
free5gcsmf	Affected <=1.4.1	Fixed in–
GitHubfree5gc/smf`pkg:github/free5gc/smf`Other threats	Affected <=1.4.1	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Implement strict Access Control Lists (ACLs) or firewall rules to restrict PFCP (UDP/8805) interface access exclusively to trusted and authenticated UPF IP addresses, minimizing exposure to spoofed or malicious traffic.
Deploy deep packet inspection or protocol-aware filtering at the network edge to detect and drop malformed PFCP SessionReportRequest messages before they reach the SMF, reducing attack surface.
Apply application-level mitigations by modifying the free5GC SMF code to include recover() or equivalent exception handling around PFCP handler dispatch routines to prevent the entire process from terminating upon encountering malformed messages.
Monitor SMF process health and PFCP traffic patterns to detect anomalies indicative of exploitation attempts.
Plan for timely updates and patches once an official fix is released by the free5GC project.
Consider network segmentation to isolate the PFCP interface from broader network access, limiting potential attack vectors.
Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on PFCP protocol handling to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively.

Description

free5GC SMF provides Session Management Function for free5GC, an open-source project for 5th generation (5G) mobile core networks. In versions up to and including 1.4.1, SMF panics and terminates when processing a malformed PFCP SessionReportRequest on the PFCP (UDP/8805) interface. No known upstream fix is available, but some workarounds are available. ACL/firewall the PFCP interface so only trusted UPF IPs can reach SMF (reduce spoofing/abuse surface); drop/inspect malformed PFCP SessionReportRequest messages at the network edge where feasible, and/or add recover() around PFCP handler dispatch to avoid whole-process termination (mitigation only).

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-26025 is a denial-of-service condition on the free5GC SMF component, which is critical for managing 5G session states. An attacker sending malformed PFCP SessionReportRequest messages can cause the SMF process to crash, leading to session management failures and potential service outages for subscribers relying on the affected 5G core network. This disruption can degrade network availability and reliability, affecting end-user experience and potentially causing revenue loss for mobile network operators. Since SMF is a core network function, its failure can cascade, impacting other 5G core components and services dependent on session continuity. The vulnerability does not expose subscriber data or allow privilege escalation, but the availability impact is significant in a production environment. Organizations relying on free5GC SMF without mitigations are at risk of targeted or opportunistic DoS attacks, especially if the PFCP interface is exposed to untrusted networks or IP addresses.

CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Mar 2026, 20:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats