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-2026-30910 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Iamb 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 21th 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-2026-30910 is an integer overflow vulnerability (CWE-190) in Crypt::Sodium::XS versions through 0.001000 for Perl. It affects the combined AEAD encryption, combined signature creation, and bin2hex functions, which do not verify that the computed output size is less than SIZE_MAX. This omission can trigger integer wraparound, resulting in an undersized output buffer allocation. For bin2hex and encryption algorithms other than aes256gcm, this leads to crashes; for aes256gcm encryption and signatures, it may cause buffer overflows.
The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H), indicating it is exploitable over the network by unauthenticated attackers with low complexity and no user interaction. Attackers must supply extremely large inputs—such as exceeding SIZE_MAX / 2 for bin2hex, SIZE_MAX - 32U for Aegis encryption, SIZE_MAX - 16U for other encryptions, or SIZE_MAX - 64U for signatures—to trigger the issue, which the description notes is unlikely. Exploitation results in denial-of-service via application crashes or buffer overflows, with no impact on confidentiality or integrity.
Advisories point to mitigation via an updated release. The changes for Crypt::Sodium::XS version 0.001001, available at https://metacpan.org/release/IAMB/Crypt-Sodium-XS-0.001001/changes, address the issue. Further discussion appears on the oss-security mailing list at http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/03/08/2. Practitioners should upgrade affected installations to version 0.001001 or later to add the necessary output size checks.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10200
Vulnerability Data
Crypt::Sodium::XS versions through 0.001000 for Perl has potential integer overflows. Combined aead encryption, combined signature creation, and bin2hex functions do not check that output size will be less than SIZE_MAX, which could lead to integer wraparound causing an undersized output…
more
buffer. This can cause a crash in bin2hex and encryption algorithms other than aes256gcm. For aes256gcm encryption and signatures, an undersized buffer could lead to buffer overflow. Encountering this issue is unlikely as the message length would need to be very large. For bin2hex the input size would have to be > SIZE_MAX / 2 For aegis encryption the input size would need to be > SIZE_MAX - 32U For other encryption the input size would need to be > SIZE_MAX - 16U For signatures the input size would need to be > SIZE_MAX - 64U
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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 integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.