CVE
BACnet Stack object deletion in ReinitializeDevice restore handling
Only affects bacnet-stack 1.5.0 before 1.5.1 and 1.6.0-rc1 before 1.6.0, in builds with BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE enabled. Fixed in 1.5.1 and 1.6.0.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
- Exploited
- Proof of concept public, per CISA
- Fix
- Fixed in 1.5.1, 1.6.0
- Who is exposed
- Specific setups only
Do first: Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs. BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE is enabled in the build ReinitializeDevice service is registered by default Restore file backup_1.bin bound as configuration file 0 in apps/server
- Last modified
- Whether it needs action now or is a reference record, by fixed rules, with why. Last checked is when cve.now last re-read it.What do these mean? →
- Reference
- Last checked
- FIRST's estimate of the chance attackers exploit it in the next 30 days, updated daily.What do these mean? →
- 0.39% · 33rd percentile
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 31/100 · provisional
- How many real-world setups can hit the bug, from the vendor's advisory and CISA data. It does not know your setup.What do these mean? →
- Specific setups only
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
- Exploitation: poc
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
BACnet Stack, a BACnet protocol library for embedded systems, has a flaw in its restore handling: when BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE is enabled, an attacker who can reach the device over the network and has low-privilege access can trigger a ReinitializeDevice ENDRESTORE request that deletes existing objects while still reporting success, which can harm integrity and availability. The flaw is reachable through the standard server management path, and it is fixed in versions 1.5.1 and 1.6.0.
Read the original description
BACnet Stack is a BACnet open source protocol stack C library for embedded systems. In versions 1.5.0 and 1.6.0-rc1, there is a restore logic flaw in bacnet-stack that is reachable through the official, unmodified apps/server management path when BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE is enabled. This issue has been patched in versions 1.5.1 and 1.6.0.
cve.now Index
- Exploitation15/40CISA rates a proof of concept as public
- Exposure8/25Specific setups only, reachable over the network
- Reach?/20Unknown. No tracked technology or package matched
- Severity8.1/10CVSS 8.1
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 66 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 61 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
- Would score about 38 if CISA's SSVC rates it automatable
What to do
Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs.
BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE is enabled in the build ReinitializeDevice service is registered by default Restore file backup_1.bin bound as configuration file 0 in apps/serverUpgrade to a fixed version: 1.5.1, 1.6.0.
Check your systems with an agent
Paste this into a coding or ops agent. It checks your systems read-only and reports a table per asset.
Check whether my systems are affected by CVE-2026-47257 (BACnet Stack: ReinitializeDevice ENDRESTORE can delete existing objects on an empty restore file and still return success), using the cve.now data below.
Rules: work read-only. Do not run exploit code, proof-of-concept scripts or scanners that send attack payloads, and do not change any configuration, package, image or deployment. Report findings only.
What cve.now has for CVE-2026-47257 (entry last updated 2026-11-13):
Affected:
- bacnet-stack bacnet-stack: from 1.5.0, fixed in 1.5.1; from 1.6.0-rc1, fixed in 1.6.0
Fixed versions: 1.5.1, 1.6.0.
Conditions (all must be true for the bug to be hit):
- BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE is enabled in the build (source: https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/security/advisories/GHSA-x6pp-3pf3-f87r)
- ReinitializeDevice service is registered by default (source: https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/security/advisories/GHSA-x6pp-3pf3-f87r)
- Restore file backup_1.bin bound as configuration file 0 in apps/server (source: https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/security/advisories/GHSA-x6pp-3pf3-f87r)
Setup: unknown whether the bug needs a non-default feature or setting. Check the advisory.
Attacker needs: network access, low-privilege login, no user action.
CISA KEV: CVE-2026-47257 is not listed as of cve.now's last read.
This KEV status is for CVE-2026-47257 only. If you also check another CVE, look up its own KEV status; never assume it from this one.
How to check:
- Installed software: check what is actually running, not what a repo declares. Read the version from each host, container image and Kubernetes node (the binary's version output, the OS package database, image layers), and check whether the conditions above hold there. Distribution packages may carry a backported fix under an older version number; confirm against the distribution's own advisory.
Verify against the linked advisories before concluding, and cite the date you read each one:
- https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/security/advisories/GHSA-x6pp-3pf3-f87r
- https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/pull/1352
Do not conclude an asset is unaffected unless you checked it and the evidence covers both its version and the conditions above. If you could not check something, mark it unknown and say what is missing.
Report a table with one row per asset and these columns: Asset | Version or build | Status (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | Compensating controls | Exposure (internet-facing, internal, none) | Evidence | Next action.
Entry: https://cve.now/CVE-2026-47257
For follow-up questions, use the cve.now MCP server at https://mcp.cve.now/mcp (no authentication), for example execute with name cve.get and arguments {"id": "CVE-2026-47257"}.Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now1 day
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: poc · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- bacnet-stack bacnet-stack
From 1.5.0 · fixed in 1.5.1; From 1.6.0-rc1 · fixed in 1.6.0
Evidence 4
Vendor advisory · 1
Establishes: Affected and fixed versions.
- Advisory
CVE record · 2
Establishes: The identifier and description.
- Record
- Record
Other links · 1
- Repository
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about CVE-2026-47257
Is CVE-2026-47257 being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. CISA's SSVC assessment notes a proof of concept exists. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
What does this mean?
A ReinitializeDevice ENDRESTORE request with an empty restore file can delete existing device objects while restoring nothing, yet the client is told the restore succeeded. The flaw is in how the restore handles an empty file.Source: github.com
Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-47257?
bacnet-stack: from 1.5.0 before 1.5.1; from 1.6.0-rc1 before 1.6.0.Source: cve.now feed data
Am I affected, and how do I check?
Versions 1.5.0 through 1.5.0 before 1.5.1, and 1.6.0-rc1 before 1.6.0, are affected when BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE is enabled in the build, since the ReinitializeDevice service is registered by default. To check, look at the bacnet-stack version in use and whether BACNET_BACKUP_RESTORE was defined when the application was built.Source: github.com
How do I fix CVE-2026-47257?
Upgrade to bacnet-stack 1.5.1 or 1.6.0, which are the listed fixed versions for this vulnerability.Source: github.com