Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33184 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Nimiq Nimiq Proof-Of-Stake. 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 38th 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-2026-33184 is an integer overflow vulnerability (CWE-191) in nimiq/core-rs-albatross, a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. In versions prior to 1.3.0, the discovery handler accepts a peer-controlled limit value during the handshake process and stores it unchanged. This leads to a panic during periodic peer list updates in established sessions when the limit is set to zero, as self.peer_list_limit.unwrap() cast to usize minus one wraps around to usize::MAX, causing rand 0.9.2's choose_multiple() to attempt Vec::with_capacity() with an overflowing value.
The vulnerability has 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 high-impact availability disruption. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit it by initiating a handshake with a peer-controlled limit of zero during discovery. The handshake acknowledgment path initially appears benign by returning zero contacts, allowing the session to reach the Established state. Subsequent periodic updates then trigger the overflow and deterministic panic, resulting in denial of service via process crash on the targeted node.
The issue has been addressed in version 1.3.0 of nimiq/core-rs-albatross. Mitigation involves upgrading to the patched release, as detailed in the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-5rm9-893q-vmhm), the fix commit (8f60a2d75b74b55764ecf34bd4435f4961630595), pull request #3664, and the v1.3.0 release notes.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-18891
Vulnerability Data
nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, the discovery handler accepts a peer-controlled limit during handshake and stores it unchanged. The immediate HandshakeAck path then honors limit…
more
= 0 and returns zero contacts, which makes the session look benign. Later, after the same session reaches Established, the periodic update path computes self.peer_list_limit.unwrap() as usize - 1. With limit = 0, that wraps to usize::MAX and then in rand 0.9.2, choose_multiple() immediately attempts Vec::with_capacity(amount), which deterministically panics with capacity overflow. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and static/dynamic analysis directly find integer underflow defects before code is released.
Security engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer underflow during subtraction.
Input validation can reject or sanitize values that would cause a subtraction to underflow the representable range.
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 prevent integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 catches integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.