CVE-2026-14957
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-14957 is a high-severity Unchecked Return Value (CWE-252) vulnerability in Libreswan (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 44th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-69820
Vulnerability Data
In FIPS mode, Libreswan's add_decoded_cert() function calls CERT_ExtractPublicKey() and asserts that the result is not NULL. However, CERT_ExtractPublicKey() returns NULL when public key extraction fails, for example if the RSA exponent is set to 0. A remote attacker can send…
more
a malformed X.509 certificate in a CERT payload to trigger the assertion, causing the pluto daemon to abort and restart. Continued exploitation causes a denial of service. No remote code execution is possible. Both IKEv1 and IKEv2 are affected. The vulnerability is only exploitable when both the OS and libreswan are running in FIPS mode and at least one CA certificate is loaded. The CERT payload is processed before peer authentication, so no credentials are needed to exploit this. Configurations using only PreSharedKey (PSK) authentication with no CA certificates loaded in the NSS database are not vulnerable.
- 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 code evaluation can discover instances where return values are ignored.
Requiring a documented development process and coding standards can mandate explicit checking of all function return values.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
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 require checking and handling all function return values to detect error conditions.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
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 missing return-value checks.
Secure development life cycle mandates verification of return values to prevent undetected failures.
Application security requirements include input/output validation and error handling that covers return-value checks.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require robust error handling and defensive coding practices.
Secure coding explicitly requires checking return values to avoid CWE-252.