Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-22260 is a high-severity Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) vulnerability in Oisf Suricata. 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 40th 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-22260 is a stack overflow vulnerability in Suricata, an open-source network intrusion detection system (IDS), intrusion prevention system (IPS), and network security monitoring (NSM) engine. The flaw affects versions 8.0.0 through 8.0.2, where improper handling of certain inputs can trigger a stack overflow, causing the Suricata process to crash. It is classified under CWE-674 (Uncontrolled Recursion) and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5.
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L), requiring no privileges (PR:N) or user interaction (UI:N), and without changing the scope (S:U). An attacker who can send crafted network traffic to a Suricata deployment—such as HTTP requests exceeding configured body limits—can cause a denial-of-service condition by crashing the engine, disrupting IDS/IPS/NSM functionality and potentially leading to high availability impact (A:H) with no direct confidentiality or integrity effects.
Suricata version 8.0.3 includes a patch to address the issue, as detailed in the commit at https://github.com/OISF/suricata/commit/0dddac7278c8b9cf3c1e4c1c71e620a78ec1c185 and the security advisory at https://github.com/OISF/suricata/security/advisories/GHSA-3gm8-84cm-5x22. As a workaround prior to patching, use the default values for the `request-body-limit` and `response-body-limit` configuration options to prevent oversized inputs from triggering the overflow. Additional details are available at https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/8185.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4793
Vulnerability Data
Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine. Starting in version 8.0.0 and prior to version 8.0.3, Suricata can crash with a stack overflow. Version 8.0.3 patches the issue. As a workaround, use default values for `request-body-limit` and `response-body-limit`.
- 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 evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Input validation can reject or constrain data that would otherwise drive unbounded recursive calls.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
DoS protection mechanisms limit the resource-exhaustion impact of uncontrolled recursion without eliminating the flaw.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
System monitoring can observe anomalous resource consumption that signals runaway recursion after it begins.
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 coding errors such as missing recursion limits or termination conditions.
Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect excessive consumption caused by uncontrolled recursion.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.
Capacity monitoring and resource provisioning can absorb or limit the impact of runaway recursion.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 can detect excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.
Secure development life cycle requires controls that prevent uncontrolled recursion through design and code review.
Application security requirements can mandate recursion limits or stack-depth checks.
Secure system architecture principles include resource-management and input-validation rules that limit recursion.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit or constrain recursive constructs that could exhaust stack or memory.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.