Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-33065 is a medium-severity Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information (CWE-209) vulnerability in Free5Gc Udm. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Software (T1592.002); ranked at the 21th 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 SI-11 (Error Handling) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13626
Vulnerability Data
Free5GC is an open-source Linux Foundation project for 5th generation (5G) mobile core networks. In versions prior to 1.4.2, the UDM incorrectly converts a downstream 400 Bad Request (from UDR) into a 500 Internal Server Error when handling DELETE requests…
more
with an empty supi path parameter. This leaks internal error handling behavior and makes it difficult for clients to distinguish between client-side errors and server-side failures. When a client sends a DELETE request with an empty supi (e.g., double slashes // in URL path), the UDM forwards the malformed request to UDR, which correctly returns 400. However, UDM propagates this as 500 SYSTEM_FAILURE instead of returning the appropriate 400 error to the client. This violates REST API best practices for DELETE operations. The issue has been patched in version 1.4.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V16.5.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
si-11 directly requires error messages to avoid revealing exploitable information about the system or its data.
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 sanitized error handling to prevent sensitive data disclosure.
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 standards explicitly forbid exposing sensitive data in errors.
Security testing can detect error messages that leak sensitive information.
Logging policy can require suppression of sensitive data in error messages.
Secure SDLC mandates error-handling rules that avoid leaking sensitive information.
Application security requirements can specify safe error messaging.
Secure architecture principles include proper exception handling.