CVE
BACnet Stack: Stack-based buffer overflow in Notification Class AddListElement recipient-list decoding
Affects bacnet-stack servers built with Notification Class support (for example INTRINSIC_REPORTING=ON) that register SERVICE_CONFIRMED_ADD_LIST_ELEMENT. Fixed in 1.4.4, 1.5.1, and 1.6.0.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- Fixed in 1.4.4, 1.5.1, 1.6.0
- Who is exposed
- Specific setups only
Do first: Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs. Notification Class support is compiled in (for example with INTRINSIC_REPORTING=ON). The server registers SERVICE_CONFIRMED_ADD_LIST_ELEMENT and dispatches it to handler_add_list_element().
- Published
- 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
- 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? →
- 20/100 · 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
Summary
BACnet Stack, a BACnet open source protocol stack C library for embedded systems, has a stack-based buffer overflow in the Notification Class object's handling of the recipient-list property during AddListElement. An attacker can reach it remotely, without logging in, and the overflow is an out-of-bounds write that can disrupt the software.
Read the original description
BACnet Stack is a BACnet open source protocol stack C library for embedded systems. Prior to versions 1.4.4, 1.5.1, and 1.6.0, a stack-based out-of-bounds write exists in the Notification Class object implementation when handling AddListElement for the recipient-list property. This issue has been patched in versions 1.4.4, 1.5.1, and 1.6.0.
Who should check
Teams running bacnet-stack 1.6.0-rc1 or earlier as a BACnet server with Notification Class (INTRINSIC_REPORTING) and the AddListElement handler enabled.
Not fixed by: A later capacity check alone does not fix it.
Read the source excerpt
“Notification Class support is compiled in, for example with INTRINSIC_REPORTING=ON”
cve.now Index
- Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
- Exposure12/25Specific setups only, reachable over the network without a login
- Reach?/20Unknown. No tracked technology or package matched
- Severity8.2/10CVSS 8.2
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 70 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 65 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
What to do
Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs.
Notification Class support is compiled in (for example with INTRINSIC_REPORTING=ON). The server registers SERVICE_CONFIRMED_ADD_LIST_ELEMENT and dispatches it to handler_add_list_element().Upgrade to a fixed version: 1.4.4, 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-2026-47258 (BACnet Stack: Stack-based buffer overflow in Notification Class AddListElement recipient-list decoding), 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-2026-47258 (entry last updated 2026-11-12):
Affected:
- bacnet-stack bacnet-stack: fixed in 1.4.4; fixed in 1.5.1; fixed in 1.6.0
Fixed versions: 1.4.4, 1.5.1, 1.6.0.
Conditions (all must be true for the bug to be hit):
- Notification Class support is compiled in (for example with INTRINSIC_REPORTING=ON). (source: https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/security/advisories/GHSA-rjmv-3mcm-r83j)
- The server registers SERVICE_CONFIRMED_ADD_LIST_ELEMENT and dispatches it to handler_add_list_element(). (source: https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/security/advisories/GHSA-rjmv-3mcm-r83j)
Setup: the bug needs a feature or setting that is off by default or uncommon. Check whether each asset has it on.
Attacker needs: network access, no login, no user action.
CISA KEV: CVE-2026-47258 is not listed as of cve.now's last read.
This KEV status is for CVE-2026-47258 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-rjmv-3mcm-r83j
- https://github.com/bacnet-stack/bacnet-stack/pull/1353
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-2026-47258
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-2026-47258"}.Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
Affected versions
- bacnet-stack bacnet-stack
fixed in 1.4.4; fixed in 1.5.1; 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-2026-47258
Is CVE-2026-47258 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. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
What does this mean?
A remote client can send a request that triggers a stack-based out-of-bounds write during Notification Class recipient-list decoding. This can crash the server process, causing a denial of service, and memory corruption is possible in builds without sanitizers.Source: github.com
Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-47258?
bacnet-stack: before 1.4.4; before 1.5.1; before 1.6.0.Source: cve.now feed data
Am I affected, and how do I check?
The affected setup needs Notification Class support compiled in, for example with INTRINSIC_REPORTING=ON, and a server that registers SERVICE_CONFIRMED_ADD_LIST_ELEMENT and dispatches it to handler_add_list_element(). To check, look at the bacnet-stack version in use and whether INTRINSIC_REPORTING was enabled at build time.Source: github.com
How do I fix CVE-2026-47258?
Upgrade to bacnet-stack 1.4.4, 1.5.1, or 1.6.0, using the fixed version on your release line. The facts do not list a workaround.Source: github.com