VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026Updated 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-26742: PX4-Autopilot · Missing Authorization

Affects PX4-AutopilotSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 1.16 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.16

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; 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 impacted component (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).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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

Upgrade npuwyw/PX4-Autopilot to 1.16.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubnpuwyw/PX4-Autopilot`pkg:github/npuwyw/PX4-Autopilot`Other threats	Affected >=1.12 <1.16	Fixed in 1.16

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-26742, organizations should: 1) Immediately update PX4 Autopilot software to the latest patched version once available that corrects the re-arm grace period logic. 2) Implement additional software-level safeguards that enforce all pre-flight safety checks regardless of mode switches or timing after landing. 3) Introduce operational procedures requiring pilots to wait beyond the 5-second grace period before re-arming or switching modes post-landing. 4) Conduct thorough training for UAV operators to recognize and avoid conditions that could trigger this vulnerability. 5) Employ telemetry monitoring to detect abnormal throttle inputs or re-arm sequences and trigger automated safety overrides. 6) For critical operations, consider hardware interlocks or redundant safety mechanisms that prevent immediate high-thrust takeoff without explicit confirmation. 7) Engage with PX4 community and vendors to track patches and advisories. 8) Perform regular security audits and flight simulations to validate that safety checks cannot be bypassed. These measures combined will reduce the risk of exploitation and enhance overall UAV operational safety.

Description

PX4 Autopilot versions 1.12.x through 1.15.x contain a protection mechanism failure in the "Re-arm Grace Period" logic. The system incorrectly applies the in-air emergency re-arm logic to ground scenarios. If a pilot switches to Manual mode and re-arms within 5 seconds (default configuration) of an automatic landing, the system bypasses all pre-flight safety checks, including the throttle threshold check. This allows for an immediate high-thrust takeoff if the throttle stick is raised, leading to loss of control.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-26742 is significant for organizations relying on PX4 Autopilot for UAV operations. The vulnerability can cause immediate loss of control during critical flight phases, such as right after landing, by allowing a high-thrust takeoff without safety checks. This can result in drone crashes, damage to expensive equipment, injury to personnel, and potential collateral damage to infrastructure or bystanders. For commercial operators, this could lead to operational downtime, financial losses, and reputational damage. In industrial or agricultural contexts, it may disrupt automated workflows and data collection. Defense and security organizations using PX4-based drones could face mission failures or unintended engagements. The lack of authentication or complex exploitation requirements means that even authorized pilots can inadvertently trigger the vulnerability, increasing the risk of accidents. Although no known exploits are reported, the vulnerability's nature makes it a critical safety concern that must be addressed promptly to prevent incidents.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/npuwyw/PX4-Autopilot/blob/audit-v1.12.3-mode-transition-logic-flaw/PX4_Autopilot_Mode_Switching_Logic_Vulnerability.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Mar 2026, 19:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats