CVE-2026-12549
Redhat Enterprise Linux 10.0 … 9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-12549 is a medium-severity Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value (CWE-805) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 34th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38279
Vulnerability Data
The fix for CVE-2026-2443 was regressed by a subsequent rework commit that replaced specific overflow checks with a general signed comparison. When a client sends a Range request with a suffix length exceeding the content size, the resulting negative start…
more
value is not properly clamped, leading to malformed HTTP 206 responses and log flooding.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and static analysis) directly finds incorrect length values used in sequential buffer accesses.
Secure engineering principles require explicit bounds checking and correct length calculations when performing buffer operations.
Input validation rejects or corrects malformed length values supplied from external sources before they reach buffer operations.
Memory protection mechanisms limit the blast radius when an incorrect length value causes an out-of-bounds access.
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.
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 can detect out-of-bounds accesses, but does not guarantee prevention.
Secure development life cycle mandates buffer-safety practices that directly prevent incorrect length values.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size validation, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture principles encourage bounds-checked APIs, yet leave concrete coding decisions to developers.
Secure coding explicitly requires correct buffer-length handling, eliminating CWE-805 when followed.