Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-3084 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Gstreamer Gstreamer. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 35th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-12127
Vulnerability Data
GStreamer H.266 Codec Parser Integer Underflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of GStreamer. Interaction with this library is required to exploit this vulnerability but attack vectors may vary depending…
more
on the implementation. The specific flaw exists within the parsing of picture partitions. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in an integer underflow before writing to memory. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-28910.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Integer underflow in media parser directly enables client-side RCE via crafted input.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of user-supplied picture partition data to block the integer underflow before memory writes occur.
Mandates prompt application of patches that correct the missing bounds check in the H.266 parser.
Provides memory protection mechanisms that can block or contain the write primitive resulting from the underflow.
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 integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.