Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-0106 is a critical-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Google Android. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 2th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-0106 is a vulnerability in the vpu_mmap function within vpu_ioctl, stemming from a missing bounds check that enables arbitrary address mmap. This issue affects Android Pixel devices and is associated with CWEs-119 (Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer), CWE-125 (Out-of-bounds Read), and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write). Published on 2026-02-05, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.3 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity.
A local attacker requires no additional execution privileges or user interaction to exploit this vulnerability. Successful exploitation allows escalation of privilege, potentially granting unauthorized access to sensitive system resources and enabling full control over the affected device due to the high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability within a changed scope.
The Android Pixel security bulletin at https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/pixel/2026/2026-02-01 details available patches and mitigation guidance for addressing this vulnerability.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-5529
Vulnerability Data
In vpu_mmap of vpu_ioctl, there is a possible arbitrary address mmap due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.