ReadyMedia 1.3.0 - 1.3.3 Stack Buffer Overflow via DFF Parser

Not in CISA KEVTrending #20CVE-2026-29508CWE-121

Not confirmed exploited. No WAF vendor names it yet.

Edge rules

0/8

Our test

No exploit yet

CVSS

8.7

EPSS

—

Posts, 14d

Published

2026-11-02

ReadyMedia (formerly MiniDLNA) versions 1.3.0 through 1.3.3 contain a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability that allows remote attackers to corrupt stack memory by crafting a malicious DFF audio file with an oversized PROP chunk size value that is used unvalidated to allocate a variable-length stack array and read file data into it. Attackers can place a crafted DFF file in a directory monitored by ReadyMedia to trigger automatic parsing via inotify, achieving remote code execution on unprotected builds or denial of service on hardened builds with stack protections.

Edge coverage

Claimed by vendors

CloudflareNo public claimNot named AWSNo public claimNot named Microsoft AzureNo public claimNot named Google CloudNo public claimNot named FastlyNo public claimNot named F5No public claimNot named AkamaiNo public sourceNo public changelog OWASP CRSNo public claimNot named

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page

Ask about CVE-2026-29508: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0

8.7High

High · 8.7 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Over the internetAny user loginNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise

How the score is built11 metrics

Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
Network
Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
Low
Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.
None
Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
Low
User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
None
Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
High
Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
High
Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
High
Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
None
Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
None
Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
None

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

CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record

ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

None found

0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

2026-11-02
CVE published
CVE List
2026-11-02
First social mention we saw

Vendor statements

Quoted

CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The feed holds only the latest 25 changes, so history builds up from the day we started reading it.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.