Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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-2026-18355 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 43% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-72455
Vulnerability Data
A heap buffer overflow flaw was found in the SASL I/O layer of 389 Directory Server (389-ds-base). In sasl_io_start_packet(), the wrapped-record length read from the wire is validated only against an upper bound. A small wire length (0, 1, or…
more
2) produces an encrypted_buffer_count below the already-consumed encrypted_buffer_offset, causing an unsigned subtraction underflow in sasl_io_read_packet(). PR_Recv is then requested to read approximately 4 GiB into a 1024-byte heap buffer, resulting in a heap buffer overflow with attacker-controlled content. After a successful SASL bind with integrity protection (SSF > 0), a remote authenticated attacker can cause a denial of service or potentially achieve remote code execution. This flaw is distinct from CVE-2026-11774, whose fix only guards against upper-bound overflow.
- 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 static/dynamic analysis directly find integer underflow defects before code is released.
Security engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer underflow during subtraction.
Input validation can reject or sanitize values that would cause a subtraction to underflow the representable range.
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 integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 integer underflow defects before release.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.