Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-27144 is a high-severity Type Confusion (CWE-843) vulnerability in Golang Go. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 18th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — 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-2026-27144 is a vulnerability in the Go compiler, published on 2026-04-08. The compiler is designed to unwrap pointers serving as operands in memory move operations to check for non-overlapping moves. However, a no-op interface conversion blocks this unwrapping, causing the compiler to incorrectly assess move overlap and potentially resulting in memory corruption during program runtime. The issue maps to CWE-843 (Type Confusion) and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H).
A local attacker with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability with low complexity and no user interaction required. Exploitation triggers memory corruption in affected Go binaries at runtime, leading to high impacts on integrity and availability but no confidentiality loss.
The Go security advisory GO-2026-4867 provides details on the vulnerability at https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4867. The issue is tracked at https://go.dev/issue/78371, fixed in change list https://go.dev/cl/763764, and announced via https://groups.google.com/g/golang-announce/c/0uYbvbPZRWU.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-20006
Vulnerability Data
The compiler is meant to unwrap pointers which are the operands of a memory move; a no-op interface conversion prevented the compiler from making the correct determination about non-overlapping moves, potentially leading to memory corruption at runtime.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.5.2V3.2.3V15.3.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and type-aware analysis) directly finds type-confusion flaws before deployment.
Engineering principles can require use of type-safe languages, static typing, and runtime type checks that structurally avoid allocating one type and accessing another.
Memory-protection controls limit the blast radius when a type-confusion access occurs but do not stop the flaw itself.
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 type-confusion flaws via safe typing, static analysis, and code review while the control itself addresses many additional weaknesses.
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 type-confusion vulnerabilities through fuzzing and static analysis.
Secure SDLC mandates type-safe design and review that can catch type-confusion flaws.
Application security requirements can specify strong typing and interface contracts that reduce type confusion.
Secure architecture principles promote type-safe languages and memory-safety mechanisms that mitigate type confusion.
Secure coding standards directly forbid unsafe type casts and require static-analysis checks for type confusion.