Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-0661 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Autodesk 3Ds Max. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 7th 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-2026-0661 is a memory corruption vulnerability (CWE-787) affecting Autodesk 3ds Max. The issue arises when the software parses a maliciously crafted RGB file, which can force memory corruption and enable a malicious actor to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process. Published on 2026-02-04, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
The vulnerability can be exploited by an attacker with local access who tricks a user into opening the malicious RGB file within Autodesk 3ds Max. No special privileges are required, and the attack has low complexity but demands user interaction. Successful exploitation allows arbitrary code execution, resulting in high impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability within the user's process context.
Autodesk has issued security advisory ADSK-SA-2026-0002 addressing CVE-2026-0661. Additional information is available at https://www.autodesk.com/trust/security-advisories/adsk-sa-2026-0002.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-5400
Vulnerability Data
A maliciously crafted RGB file, when parsed through Autodesk 3ds Max, can force a Memory Corruption vulnerability. A malicious actor can leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.