Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-32746 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Gnu Inetutils. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-32746 is an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the telnetd component of GNU inetutils through version 2.7. It occurs in the LINEMODE SLC suboption handler because the add_slc function fails to verify whether the buffer is full before writing data, corresponding to CWE-120. The flaw carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8, reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can send crafted telnet option sequences to trigger the buffer overflow. Successful exploitation can result in arbitrary code execution, full system compromise, or denial of service on the affected telnet daemon.
Public references include mailing-list disclosures on the GNU inetutils bug list and oss-security, along with a watchtowr labs repository that demonstrates the issue. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0530 with no material rise since disclosure, indicating limited observed exploitation interest to date.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-12065
Vulnerability Data
telnetd in GNU inetutils through 2.7 allows an out-of-bounds write in the LINEMODE SLC (Set Local Characters) suboption handler because add_slc does not check whether the buffer is full.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.