Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-0481

Published
15 May 2026
Modified
17 June 2026
CVSS Score v4 9.2
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0031 24th percentile
Risk Priority 44 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-0481 is a critical-severity Binding to an Unrestricted IP Address (CWE-1327) vulnerability in Amd (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.2 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 24th 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 CM-6 (Configuration Settings) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Unrestricted IP address binding in the AMD Device Metrics Exporter (ROCm ecosystem) could allow a remote attacker to perform unauthorized changes to the GPU configuration, potentially resulting in loss of availability

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-36105Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2025-61934Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2026-24015Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2024-47176Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2026-42503Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2025-55322Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2026-28395Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2024-49383Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2026-20212Shared CWE-1327
CVE-2023-5398Shared CWE-1327

Affected Assets

Amd
—
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Establishes the most restrictive configuration settings, which would require binding only to specific addresses rather than 0.0.0.0.

Enforces approved information flow policies that would disallow unrestricted remote bindings.

Enforces least functionality by prohibiting unnecessary network exposure such as unrestricted listening addresses.

Requires control of communications at external and key internal interfaces, preventing binding that accepts traffic from any source.

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.

ID.AM-03 partial match
prevents

Documenting authorized network flows informs correct bind decisions and reduces the chance of 0.0.0.0 usage.

PR.IR-01 partial match
prevents

Network protection controls directly prevent exposure via unrestricted binds while fixing the weakness addresses only one vector of unauthorized access.

PR.PS-01 partial match
prevents

Configuration management enforces restricted bind addresses, covering the weakness completely but only one aspect of overall hardening.

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.

mitigates

Network security controls directly require restricting listening interfaces to specific addresses rather than 0.0.0.0.

prevents

Security of network services includes hardening service bindings to prevent exposure on all interfaces.

mitigates

Network segregation can limit the blast radius of an unrestricted binding but does not prevent the binding itself.

prevents

Secure architecture principles discourage exposing services on all interfaces, though the control is broader than this single weakness.

prevents

Secure coding guidance can catch hard-coded 0.0.0.0 bindings during development but is not the primary mitigation.

References