VulnerabilityPublished 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-2966: Cesanta Mongoose · Weak Randomness

Affects Cesanta MongooseSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
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: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · 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 23 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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
CesantaMongoose	Affected 7.0 – 7.20 21 affected builds	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:cesanta:mongoose:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Until an official patch is released, organizations should implement the following mitigations: 1) Monitor network traffic for unusual DNS responses or anomalies indicative of DNS spoofing attempts. 2) Employ DNS security extensions (DNSSEC) to validate DNS responses cryptographically, mitigating spoofing risks. 3) Restrict network access to devices running vulnerable Mongoose versions, especially limiting exposure to untrusted networks. 4) Where possible, update or replace Cesanta Mongoose with versions beyond 7.20 once patches become available or consider alternative DNS handling libraries with stronger randomness guarantees. 5) Implement network-level protections such as DNS filtering, anomaly detection, and intrusion prevention systems to detect and block DNS manipulation attempts. 6) Conduct regular security assessments of embedded and IoT devices using Mongoose to identify and isolate vulnerable systems. 7) Engage with vendors or developers to demand timely patches and transparency regarding this vulnerability.

Description

A weakness has been identified in Cesanta Mongoose up to 7.20. The impacted element is the function mg_sendnsreq of the file /src/dns.c of the component DNS Transaction ID Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument random can lead to insufficiently random values. The attack can be launched remotely. The attack requires a high level of complexity. The exploitability is regarded as difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is on the confidentiality and integrity of DNS transactions handled by Cesanta Mongoose. By predicting DNS transaction IDs, attackers can perform DNS spoofing or cache poisoning, redirecting users or devices to malicious servers, intercepting sensitive data, or disrupting network services. This can lead to man-in-the-middle attacks, data theft, or denial of service in critical IoT or embedded systems relying on Mongoose for DNS resolution. Given the widespread use of Mongoose in embedded devices and IoT applications, the vulnerability could affect a broad range of industries including telecommunications, industrial control systems, smart home devices, and critical infrastructure. The difficulty of exploitation reduces immediate risk, but the availability of exploit code and lack of vendor response increase long-term exposure. Organizations may face reputational damage, operational disruption, and potential regulatory consequences if exploited.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…