CVE-2026-19534
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-2026-19534 is a high-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability in Openjsf (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 33th 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-2026-71636
Vulnerability Data
undici's WebSocket client crashes the whole Node.js process during the opening handshake when a server responds with a subprotocol that the client never requested. A default WebSocket connection sends no subprotocol, but if the server's 101 response includes a Sec-WebSocket-Protocol…
more
header, undici dereferences a null value while checking it against the requested list and throws an uncaught TypeError. Because that code runs inside a microtask with no surrounding error handling, the exception propagates and terminates the process under Node's default behavior, instead of gracefully failing the connection as required by the WebSocket protocol. Any application that opens a WebSocket to an attacker-controlled or compromised server, or over a plaintext connection subject to a machine-in-the-middle, can be crashed remotely without authentication in the default configuration. This affects undici versions from 6.7.0 up to 6.28.1, from 7.0.0 up to 7.29.1, and from 8.0.0 up to 8.10.2. Users should upgrade to undici 6.28.1, 7.29.1, or 8.10.2.
- 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 include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
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 explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
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 can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.
Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.
Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.
Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.