Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-18397

Published
01 October 2026
Modified
02 October 2026
CVSS Score v4 9.4
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0034 25th percentile
Risk Priority 70 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-18397 is a critical-severity Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (CWE-130) vulnerability in Thalesgroup (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.4 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Invalid Code Signature (T1036.001); ranked at the 25th 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

Vulnerability Data

This vulnerability enables unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE) on a victim's machine by exploiting a combination of cryptographic weaknesses and memory management issues in the SConnect native host component. The attack leverages an unrestricted messaging interface between an attacker-controlled web…

more

page and the native host, allowing malicious input to bypass security checks.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1036.001 Invalid Code Signature Stealth
Adversaries may attempt to mimic features of valid code signatures to increase the chance of deceiving a user, analyst, or tool.
T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1195 Supply Chain Compromise Initial Access
Adversaries may manipulate products or product delivery mechanisms prior to receipt by a final consumer for the purpose of data or system compromise.
T1195.002 Compromise Software Supply Chain Initial Access
Adversaries may manipulate application software prior to receipt by a final consumer for the purpose of data or system compromise.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-39829Shared CWE-347
CVE-2026-56727Shared CWE-347
CVE-2025-65295Shared CWE-347, CWE-457
CVE-2026-22255Shared CWE-130, CWE-252
CVE-2026-15265Shared CWE-347
CVE-2024-41254Shared CWE-347
CVE-2026-58200Shared CWE-347
CVE-2024-23456Shared CWE-347
CVE-2026-6331Shared CWE-347
CVE-2025-20206Shared CWE-347

Affected Assets

Thalesgroup
—
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 14 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V3.5.5
  • V4.2.1
  • V4.2.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover length-parameter inconsistencies through targeted parsing tests.

Requiring a documented development process and coding standards can mandate explicit checking of all function return values.

Engineering principles can mandate explicit variable initialization to avoid uninitialized use.

Requiring cryptographic protection mechanisms forces correct signature verification to be implemented for data protection.

Protecting session authenticity requires correct verification of cryptographic signatures or equivalent mechanisms.

Input validation enforces correct length-to-data consistency checks on parsed messages before processing.

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.

ID.RA-09 partial match
blocks

Requires assessing authenticity and integrity of acquired assets, which commonly relies on signature verification but is limited to pre-acquisition.

PR.DS-01 partial match
blocks

Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-at-rest, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.

PR.DS-02 partial match
blocks

Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-in-transit, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.

PR.PS-06 partial match
blocks

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce length validation and input sanitization during coding and review.

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.

removes
removes
removes
removes
removes

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
  • V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
  • V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
  • V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. blocks CWE-347
  • V-271523 OL 9 must check the GPG signature of locally installed software packages before installation. blocks CWE-347
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
  • V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
  • V-204448 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
  • V-230264 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
  • V-257822 RHEL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. blocks CWE-347

References