Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-14759 is a low-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Radare Radare2. Its CVSS base score is 1.9 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 9th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-41769
Vulnerability Data
A security flaw has been discovered in radareorg radare2 up to 6.1.6. This issue affects the function r_bin_java_inner_classes_attr_calc_size of the file shlr/java/class.c of the component RBinJava Line Number Table Parser. Performing a manipulation results in heap-based buffer overflow. The attack…
more
requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The patch is named cd62d15a6cbecdc67fd03f3ebdbbbeb741d18f87. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Heap buffer overflow in local Java class file parser enables client-side code execution via malicious input file.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of untrusted Java class file input before the Line Number Table parser performs size calculations that trigger the heap overflow.
Requires prompt application of the vendor patch (cd62d15a) that corrects the bounds error in r_bin_java_inner_classes_attr_calc_size.
Applies memory-protection mechanisms (e.g., ASLR, guard pages) that reduce the likelihood of successful exploitation of the remaining heap-buffer-overflow condition.
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 directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
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.
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.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.