Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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-2026-27298 is a high-severity Type Confusion (CWE-843) vulnerability in Adobe Framemaker. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 7th 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-2026-27298 is an Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion') vulnerability, classified under CWE-843, affecting Adobe Framemaker versions 2022.8 and earlier. This flaw could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. The vulnerability received a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and was published on 2026-04-14T23:16:26.930.
Exploitation requires user interaction, specifically a victim opening a malicious file. An attacker with local access and no privileges can craft and deliver such a file, achieving arbitrary code execution with high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts upon the victim's interaction.
Adobe's security advisory at https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/framemaker/apsb26-36.html provides information on mitigation measures for this vulnerability.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22792
Vulnerability Data
Adobe Framemaker versions 2022.8 and earlier are affected by an Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion') vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction…
more
in that a victim must open a malicious file.
- 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.