Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-33598 is a medium-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Powerdns Dnsdist. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 38% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-33598 is an out-of-bounds read vulnerability (CWE-125) affecting dnsdist. It arises when custom Lua code invokes the getDomainListByAddress() or getAddressListByDomain() functions on a packet cache containing a crafted response, potentially leading to memory access beyond allocated bounds. The issue was published on 2026-04-22 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.8 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L).
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability over the network without user interaction, though it demands high attack complexity. Exploitation enables limited disclosure of sensitive information or limited impairment of availability, such as partial data exposure or minor service disruption.
The PowerDNS security advisory for dnsdist details mitigation steps and is available at https://www.dnsdist.org/security-advisories/powerdns-advisory-for-dnsdist-2026-04.html.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-24939
Vulnerability Data
A cached crafted response can cause an out-of-bounds read if custom Lua code calls getDomainListByAddress() or getAddressListByDomain() on a packet cache.
- 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 evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
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 such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.