Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by a buffer overflow by an authenticated user.
Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by a buffer overflow by an authenticated user. This affects D3600 before 1.0.0.76, D6000 before 1.0.0.76, D6200 before 1.1.00.36, D7000 before 1.0.1.70, EX6200v2 before 1.0.1.78, EX7000 before 1.0.1.78, EX8000 before 1.0.1.186, JR6150 before 1.0.1.18, PR2000 before 1.0.0.28, R6020 before 1.0.0.42, R6050 before 1.0.1.18, R6080 before 1.0.0.42, R6120 before 1.0.0.46, R6220 before 1.1.0.80, R6260 before 1.1.0.64, R6300v2 before 1.0.4.34, R6700 before 1.0.2.6, R6700v2 before 1.2.0.36, R6800 before 1.2.0.36, R6900 before 1.0.2.4, R6900P before 1.3.1.64, R6900v2 before 1.2.0.36, R7000 before 1.0.9.42, R7000P before 1.3.1.64, R7800 before 1.0.2.60, R8900 before 1.0.4.12, R9000 before 1.0.4.12, and XR500 before 2.3.2.40.
- Published
- Dec 29, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.5% · 40th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-120
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 32 / 40 · 8.0 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.5%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 8.0
- CNA · mitre
- 8.0
- agree
CVSS:3.1/AC:L/AV:A/A:H/C:H/I:H/PR:L/S:U/UI:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| netgear | d3600 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netgear:d3600_firmware |
| netgear | d3600 | cpe:2.3:h:netgear:d3600 |
| netgear | d6000 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netgear:d6000_firmware |
| netgear | d6000 | cpe:2.3:h:netgear:d6000 |
| netgear | d6200 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netgear:d6200_firmware |
| netgear | d6200 | cpe:2.3:h:netgear:d6200 |
| netgear | d7000 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netgear:d7000_firmware |
| netgear | d7000 | cpe:2.3:h:netgear:d7000 |
| netgear | ex6200 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netgear:ex6200_firmware |
| netgear | ex6200 | cpe:2.3:h:netgear:ex6200 |
| netgear | ex7000 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netgear:ex7000_firmware |
| netgear | ex7000 | cpe:2.3:h:netgear:ex7000 |
and 40 more
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- netgear d3600 firmwarebefore 1.0.0.76
- netgear d6000 firmwarebefore 1.0.0.76
- netgear d6200 firmwarebefore 1.1.00.36
- netgear d7000 firmwarebefore 1.0.1.70
- netgear ex6200 firmwarebefore 1.0.1.78
- netgear ex7000 firmwarebefore 1.0.1.78
- netgear ex8000 firmwarebefore 1.0.1.186
- netgear jr6150 firmwarebefore 1.0.1.18
- netgear pr2000 firmwarebefore 1.0.0.28
- netgear r6020 firmwarebefore 1.0.0.42
- netgear r6050 firmwarebefore 1.0.1.18
- netgear r6080 firmwarebefore 1.0.0.42
- netgear r6120 firmwarebefore 1.0.0.46
- netgear r6220 firmwarebefore 1.1.0.80
- netgear r6260 firmwarebefore 1.1.0.64
- netgear r6300 firmwarebefore 1.0.4.34
- netgear r6700 firmwarebefore 1.0.2.6
- netgear r6700 firmwarebefore 1.2.0.36
- netgear r6800 firmwarebefore 1.2.0.36
- netgear r6900 firmwarebefore 1.2.0.36
Same product
netgear: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-35799Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by a stack-based buffer overflow by an unauthenticated attacker.39Monitor
- CVE-2018-21137Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by a hardcoded password.39Monitor
- CVE-2019-20730Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by SQL injection.39Monitor
- CVE-2017-18762Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an unauthenticated attacker.36Monitor
- CVE-2021-45641Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by incorrect configuration of security settings.35Monitor
- CVE-2018-21224Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by a buffer overflow by an unauthenticated attacker.35Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone on the same network segment can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-120 · Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Root cause
When data is copied, the source length is not compared with the size of the destination buffer. Excess data overwrites adjacent memory.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-120 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
char buf[256];memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);Fixed
char buf[256];if (pkt->len > sizeof(buf)) { return -EINVAL;}memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Overflow BuffersCAPEC-100likelihood: High · Very High
- Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-14likelihood: Medium · High
- Filter Failure through Buffer OverflowCAPEC-24likelihood: High · High
- MIME ConversionCAPEC-42likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Binary Resource FileCAPEC-44likelihood: High · Very High
- Buffer Overflow via Symbolic LinksCAPEC-45likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Variables and TagsCAPEC-46likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.