Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-1940 is a medium-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux. Its CVSS base score is 5.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 13th 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-2026-14551
Vulnerability Data
An incomplete fix for CVE-2024-47778 allows an out-of-bounds read in gst_wavparse_adtl_chunk() function. The patch added a size validation check lsize + 8 > size, but it does not account for the GST_ROUND_UP_2(lsize) used in the actual offset calculation. When lsize…
more
is an odd number, the parser advances more bytes than validated, causing OOB read.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
OOB read in media file parser (WAV) directly enables client-side exploitation via malicious file processing.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of all input fields (including chunk sizes and offsets) before use, which would have prevented the mismatched lsize vs. GST_ROUND_UP_2(lsize) check.
Mandates rigorous developer testing and fuzzing of parsers that would have detected the incomplete size-validation fix for the prior CVE.
Requires use of secure development standards and tools that enforce correct offset arithmetic and bounds checking in media parsers.
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-development practices such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.