Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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-2026-1485 is a low-severity Buffer Underflow (CWE-124) vulnerability in Gnome (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 2.8 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 4th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4835
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in Glib's content type parsing logic. This buffer underflow vulnerability occurs because the length of a header line is stored in a signed integer, which can lead to integer wraparound for very large inputs. This results…
more
in pointer underflow and out-of-bounds memory access. Exploitation requires a local user to install or process a specially crafted treemagic file, which can lead to local denial of service or application instability.
- 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 analysis can discover buffer underwrite flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation can enforce bounds on indices or pointers before buffer writes, structurally stopping underwrite conditions.
Memory protection mechanisms limit the blast radius of an out-of-bounds write even if the coding flaw exists.
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 directly prevent introduction of buffer underwrite flaws via coding standards, reviews, and testing.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover buffer underwrite issues but do not prevent their creation.
Patching removes instances of the weakness after discovery but does not address root-cause prevention in code.
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 buffer-underflow defects before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent buffer underflow.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and pointer-safety rules.
Secure architecture and engineering principles require safe memory-handling patterns.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds checks.