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-2026-16179 is a high-severity Buffer Underflow (CWE-124) vulnerability in Ibm (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 23th 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-2026-94957
Vulnerability Data
IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 could allow an attacker to cause a heap buffer underwrite and potentially crash the service.
- 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.
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.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent introduction of buffer underwrite flaws via coding standards, reviews, and testing.
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.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices (secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing, developer training) that reach buffer management and can stop underwrite defects from being introduced, but this is only a minority slice of the weakness class because many instances arise from non-SDLC factors like unsafe third-party libraries, runtime misconfigurations, or legacy code not redeveloped under the process.
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.
Security testing in development catches buffer-underflow defects before release.