CVE-2026-12974
A Security Policy Bypass vulnerability exists in Forcepoint Security Engine (NGFW). This issue affects Forcepoint Security Engine (NGFW):
CVSS
—
No CVSS
EPSS
0.3%
p20
KEV
—
Exploit Today
6
0-100
Published: Sep 23, 2026 · Last modified: Sep 23, 2026 · CWE-183 · CWE-1284
0.3%EPSS · 30 days0.3%
2026-09-242026-09-29
A Security Policy Bypass vulnerability exists in Forcepoint Security Engine (NGFW). This issue affects Forcepoint Security Engine (NGFW): from 7.1.0 through 7.1.13, from 7.3.0 through 7.3.1, 7.3.3, from 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, and 7.5.0.
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2026-86133——
——0An integer underflow vulnerability in the WatchGuard Fireware OS IKE daemon (iked) allows a remote attacker who has completed the initial IKEv2 handshake to crash the iked process by sending a specially crafted encrypted IKEv2 message, resulting in a denial of service.12hCVE-2026-102730——
——0Mounting an attacker-controlled NAND flash image (`lx_nand_flash_open()`) triggers an unbounded out-of-bounds heap **write** in LevelX's NAND flash-translation-layer metadata parser that overwrites a driver function pointer in the control block, giving a demonstrated control-flow hijack — RIP set to a full 8-byte attacker-chosen value (register-verified). Two accompanying OOB reads. All reproduced verbatim under ASan at HEAD `9f1cfdc`. (The affected metadata-parser header states "Some portions generated by Copilot (Sonnet 4.6)" — an AI-generated parser with an unchecked on-flash count.)17hCVE-2026-102711——
——0Two issues in the ThreadX loadable-module loader, reached when a device loads an attacker-controlled module object via `_txm_module_manager_memory_load` / `_txm_module_manager_in_place_load` — APIs that take ONLY a base pointer, no image length, so every size/offset field in `TXM_MODULE_PREAMBLE` is fully attacker-trusted: (1) a heap OOB **read** (`code_size` trusted as the source-image length in the code-copy loop), and (2) a control-flow-integrity / defense-in-depth gap (module entry/start/callback/stop pointers computed as `code_start + preamble_offset` with only a `!= 0` check, and the preamble `checksum` never verified). No controlled OOB write was found (honest — the copy destination is overflow-guarded).14hCVE-2026-758065.3 MED—
——0Issue summary: An established DTLS 1.2 association using an AEAD cipher suite
can be terminated by a single unauthenticated datagram whose encrypted
fragment is shorter than the mandatory explicit IV and authentication tag
overhead.
Impact summary: An attacker who can send a datagram that is routed to an
existing DTLS 1.2 association can tear that association down without knowing
any key material. This is a Denial of Service limited to the targeted
association. There is no memory safety or confidentiality impact.
CWE: CWE-1284: Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input
Description: In TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 every record protected by an AEAD cipher
suite carries an explicit IV followed by the ciphertext and an authentication
tag. When decrypting such a record the record layer passed the record length to
the cipher implementation before checking that the record was long enough to
contain the explicit IV and the tag. For a record shorter than that overhead the
cipher implementation rejected the impossible length, and the record layer
treated this as an internal failure and raised a fatal internal_error alert
instead of treating the record as one that failed authentication.
In TLS 1.2 the same record causes a fatal internal_error alert instead of the
expected bad_record_mac alert. Since any undecryptable record already
terminates a TLS connection, this is a protocol conformance issue rather than
a security issue in TLS.
The fix validates the record length against the explicit IV and tag length
before any AEAD processing, so that TLS reports bad_record_mac and DTLS
silently discards the record.
FIPS impact: no
The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.15hCVE-2026-970585.3 MED27.9%
——8sprintf-js through 1.1.3 passes unbounded precision specifiers to toFixed, toExponential, and toPrecision methods without validation, causing uncaught RangeError exceptions. Attackers who control format strings can inject precision values exceeding ECMAScript limits to abort calling operations with minimal payload.6dCVE-2026-970577.5 HIG30.9%
——9redis-parser through 3.0.0 fails to validate the multi-bulk length value in RESP protocol parsing, allowing attackers to trigger an uncaught RangeError by supplying an excessively large declared length. A malicious or compromised Redis endpoint can deliver a crafted RESP header with a length above 2^32-1 to crash the Node.js client process.6d