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-2026-2597 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Leont Crypt\. 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 22th 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-2026-2597 affects Crypt::SysRandom::XS versions before 0.010 for Perl, specifically a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the XS function random_bytes(). The function fails to validate that the length parameter is non-negative. Supplying a negative value, such as -1, triggers an integer wraparound in the expression length + 1u, resulting in a zero-byte allocation. The subsequent call to a random function like getrandom passes the original negative value, which converts to a large unsigned value (typically SIZE_MAX), enabling writes beyond the allocated buffer and causing heap memory corruption and application crashes.
Attackers can exploit this remotely with low complexity, requiring no privileges or user interaction, leading to denial of service via application crashes, as indicated by the CVSS score of 7.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H). Exploitation hinges on supplying a negative length parameter, which is unlikely in common usage where lengths are hardcoded by callers. However, applications passing untrusted input to this parameter are vulnerable to heap corruption.
References point to the module's changes file on MetaCPAN and the source code in version 0.011, indicating mitigation through upgrading to Crypt::SysRandom::XS version 0.010 or later, where the validation issue is addressed. The vulnerability maps to CWE-122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow) and CWE-1284 (Wrap-around Error).
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8939
Vulnerability Data
Crypt::SysRandom::XS versions before 0.010 for Perl is vulnerable to a heap buffer overflow in the XS function random_bytes(). The function does not validate that the length parameter is non-negative. If a negative value (e.g. -1) is supplied, the expression length…
more
+ 1u causes an integer wraparound, resulting in a zero-byte allocation. The subsequent call to chosen random function (e.g. getrandom) passes the original negative value, which is implicitly converted to a large unsigned value (typically SIZE_MAX). This can result in writes beyond the allocated buffer, leading to heap memory corruption and application crash (denial of service). In common usage, the length argument is typically hardcoded by the caller, which reduces the likelihood of attacker-controlled exploitation. Applications that pass untrusted input to this parameter may be affected.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.7.2V1.4.1V1.4.2V2.1.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 can detect heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.