Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-2662 is a medium-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Lily-Lang Lily. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 12th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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.
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-2026-2662 is an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in FascinatedBox lily versions up to 2.3, specifically affecting the count_transforms function in the src/lily_emitter.c file. This flaw, associated with CWE-119, CWE-125, and CWE-787, has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 3.3 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L), indicating low severity with primarily availability impact.
The vulnerability requires local access with low privileges to exploit, involving low-complexity manipulation that triggers the out-of-bounds read. Successful exploitation results in limited denial-of-service effects, such as application crashes, with no confidentiality or integrity impacts.
Advisories note that the project was informed early via GitHub issue #381 but has not responded, and no patches are available. A public proof-of-concept exploit is available at https://github.com/oneafter/0122/blob/main/i381/repro.lily, which could facilitate attacks. Additional details are in the project repository at https://github.com/FascinatedBox/lily/issues/381 and VulDB entries at https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.346460 and https://vuldb.com/?id.346460.
The exploit has been made publicly available, increasing the risk of targeted local attacks despite the lack of project response.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-7640
Vulnerability Data
A weakness has been identified in FascinatedBox lily up to 2.3. This vulnerability affects the function count_transforms of the file src/lily_emitter.c. This manipulation causes out-of-bounds read. The attack can only be executed locally. The exploit has been made available to…
more
the public and could be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.