Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-32316 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Jqlang Jq. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 39th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2026-32316 is an integer overflow vulnerability in the jq command-line JSON processor, affecting versions through 1.8.1. The issue resides in the jvp_string_append() and jvp_string_copy_replace_bad() functions, where concatenating strings with a combined length exceeding 2^31 bytes triggers a 32-bit unsigned integer overflow during buffer allocation size calculation. This results in a drastically undersized heap buffer, followed by memory copy operations that write full string data into it, causing a heap-based buffer overflow classified as CWE-190 (Integer Overflow) leading to CWE-122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow). Unlike arrays and objects, which have size limits, string handling lacked bounds checking.
The vulnerability can be exploited by any attacker who can supply untrusted jq queries to a vulnerable system, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.2 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H) indicating network accessibility, low attack complexity, no privileges required, and high availability impact. Exploitation involves crafting queries that generate extremely large strings, enabling process crashes or potential heap corruption for further compromise, such as code execution.
Mitigation is available via the patch in commit e47e56d226519635768e6aab2f38f0ab037c09e5, as detailed in the jq security advisory GHSA-q3h9-m34w-h76f. Security practitioners should update to a patched version of jq and avoid evaluating untrusted queries on affected systems.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22039
Vulnerability Data
jq is a command-line JSON processor. An integer overflow vulnerability exists through version 1.8.1 within the jvp_string_append() and jvp_string_copy_replace_bad functions, where concatenating strings with a combined length exceeding 2^31 bytes causes a 32-bit unsigned integer overflow in the buffer allocation…
more
size calculation, resulting in a drastically undersized heap buffer. Subsequent memory copy operations then write the full string data into this undersized buffer, causing a heap buffer overflow classified as CWE-190 (Integer Overflow) leading to CWE-122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow). Any system evaluating untrusted jq queries is affected, as an attacker can crash the process or potentially achieve further exploitation through heap corruption by crafting queries that produce extremely large strings. The root cause is the absence of string size bounds checking, unlike arrays and objects which already have size limits. The issue has been addressed in commit e47e56d226519635768e6aab2f38f0ab037c09e5.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 and acceptance can detect heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.