Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-32845 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 3th 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 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-2026-32845, published on 2026-03-23, is an integer overflow vulnerability (CWE-190) affecting cgltf versions 1.15 and prior. The issue resides in the cgltf_validate() function during validation of sparse accessors, where unchecked arithmetic operations on attacker-controlled size values from crafted glTF/GLB input files trigger out-of-bounds reads. This leads to heap buffer over-reads in the cgltf_calc_index_bound() function. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.4 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
A local attacker, requiring no privileges or user interaction, can exploit this vulnerability by supplying malicious glTF/GLB files to applications or services that parse them using the affected cgltf library. Successful exploitation causes heap buffer over-reads, resulting in denial-of-service crashes or potential disclosure of sensitive memory contents.
Mitigation details are available in advisories including the GitHub issue at https://github.com/jkuhlmann/cgltf/issues/287 and the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/jkuhlmann-cgltf-sparse-accessor-validation-integer-overflow.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-14448
Vulnerability Data
cgltf version 1.15 and prior contain an integer overflow vulnerability in the cgltf_validate() function when validating sparse accessors that allows attackers to trigger out-of-bounds reads by supplying crafted glTF/GLB input files with attacker-controlled size values. Attackers can exploit unchecked arithmetic…
more
operations in sparse accessor validation to cause heap buffer over-reads in cgltf_calc_index_bound(), resulting in denial of service crashes and potential memory disclosure.
- 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.
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.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.