Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-33947 is a medium-severity Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) vulnerability in Jqlang Jq. Its CVSS base score is 6.2 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 14th 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-10 (Information Input Validation) and SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22124
Vulnerability Data
jq is a command-line JSON processor. In versions 1.8.1 and below, functions jv_setpath(), jv_getpath(), and delpaths_sorted() in jq's src/jv_aux.c use unbounded recursion whose depth is controlled by the length of a caller-supplied path array, with no depth limit enforced. An…
more
attacker can supply a JSON document containing a flat array of ~65,000 integers (~200 KB) that, when used as a path argument by a trusted jq filter, exhausts the C call stack and crashes the process with a segmentation fault (SIGSEGV). This bypass works because the existing MAX_PARSING_DEPTH (10,000) limit only protects the JSON parser, not runtime path operations where arrays can be programmatically constructed to arbitrary lengths. The impact is denial of service (unrecoverable crash) affecting any application or service that processes untrusted JSON input through jq's setpath, getpath, or delpaths builtins. This issue has been addressed in commit fb59f1491058d58bdc3e8dd28f1773d1ac690a1f.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation can reject or constrain data that would otherwise drive unbounded recursive calls.
DoS protection mechanisms limit the resource-exhaustion impact of uncontrolled recursion without eliminating the flaw.
System monitoring can observe anomalous resource consumption that signals runaway recursion after it begins.
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 coding errors such as missing recursion limits or termination conditions.
Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect excessive consumption caused by uncontrolled recursion.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.
Capacity monitoring and resource provisioning can absorb or limit the impact of runaway recursion.
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 can detect excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.
Secure development life cycle requires controls that prevent uncontrolled recursion through design and code review.
Application security requirements can mandate recursion limits or stack-depth checks.
Secure system architecture principles include resource-management and input-validation rules that limit recursion.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit or constrain recursive constructs that could exhaust stack or memory.
Capacity management includes monitoring and limits that mitigate resource exhaustion from runaway recursion.