VulnerabilityPublished 13 Mar 2026Updated 17 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32709: PX4-Autopilot · Path Traversal

Affects PX4-AutopilotSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 1.17.0-rc2 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.17.0-rc2

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

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

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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Mar 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

Upgrade PX4-Autopilot to 1.17.0-rc2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PX4PX4-Autopilot	Affected <1.17.0-rc2	Fixed in 1.17.0-rc2
GitHubpx4/PX4-Autopilot`pkg:github/px4/PX4-Autopilot`Other threats	Affected =1.17.0-rc2	Fixed in–

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-2026-32709, organizations should immediately upgrade PX4 Autopilot to version 1.17.0-rc2 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrades are applied, restrict MAVLink access strictly to trusted and authenticated entities by implementing network segmentation and firewall rules that limit MAVLink traffic to authorized ground stations or control systems. Employ secure communication channels such as MAVLink over encrypted links (e.g., MAVLink over TLS or VPN) to prevent unauthorized peers from connecting. Conduct thorough audits of flight controller filesystem permissions and monitor for unusual file operations indicative of exploitation attempts. Implement runtime integrity checks on critical files to detect unauthorized modifications. For deployments on POSIX targets, ensure that companion computers enforce additional access controls and validate MAVLink messages. Finally, incorporate anomaly detection systems that can alert on suspicious MAVLink FTP activity or unexpected filesystem changes. These targeted measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, monitoring, and rapid patch deployment specific to PX4 environments.

Description

PX4 autopilot is a flight control solution for drones. Prior to 1.17.0-rc2, An unauthenticated path traversal vulnerability in the PX4 Autopilot MAVLink FTP implementation allows any MAVLink peer to read, write, create, delete, and rename arbitrary files on the flight controller filesystem without authentication. On NuttX targets, the FTP root directory is an empty string, meaning attacker-supplied paths are passed directly to filesystem syscalls with no prefix or sanitization for read operations. On POSIX targets (Linux companion computers, SITL), the write-path validation function unconditionally returns true, providing no protection. A TOCTOU race condition in the write validation on NuttX further allows bypassing the only existing guard. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.17.0-rc2.

Impact

This vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations deploying PX4 Autopilot-based drones, especially those relying on NuttX or POSIX targets. Attackers can gain unauthorized access to the flight controller filesystem, potentially exposing sensitive configuration files, flight logs, or cryptographic keys. They can also modify or delete files, which may disrupt drone operations, cause erratic behavior, or enable further compromise. This could lead to loss of control over drones, data leakage, or sabotage of drone missions. The lack of authentication means that any MAVLink peer, including potentially malicious nearby actors or compromised ground stations, can exploit this vulnerability. While the vulnerability does not directly cause denial of service, the ability to alter critical files could indirectly degrade system availability or safety. Organizations using PX4 drones in critical infrastructure monitoring, delivery services, or defense applications face heightened risks. The medium CVSS score indicates a moderate but tangible threat that requires timely remediation to prevent exploitation.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/security/advisories/GHSA-fh32-qxj9-x32f (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Mar 2026, 23:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats