Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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-2026-3549 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Wolfssl Wolfssl. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 40th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2026-3549 is a heap overflow vulnerability in the wolfSSL library's TLS 1.3 Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) parsing logic. An integer underflow occurs when calculating a buffer length during ECH extension parsing, leading to writing beyond the bounds of an allocated buffer. This affects wolfSSL implementations where ECH is enabled, though ECH is disabled by default in wolfSSL, and the ECH standard remains under development.
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required, as indicated by its CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). Successful exploitation could result in high-impact consequences, including arbitrary code execution, data disclosure, or system compromise through the heap overflow (CWE-122).
Mitigation is addressed in a wolfSSL GitHub pull request at https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/9817, which fixes the integer underflow in ECH parsing. Security practitioners should update to the patched version and ensure ECH remains disabled unless explicitly required.
Notable context includes that ECH is off by default in wolfSSL, reducing exposure, and no real-world exploitation has been reported as of the CVE publication on 2026-03-19.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13168
Vulnerability Data
Heap Overflow in TLS 1.3 ECH parsing. An integer underflow existed in ECH extension parsing logic when calculating a buffer length, which resulted in writing beyond the bounds of an allocated buffer. Note that in wolfSSL, ECH is off by…
more
default, and the ECH standard is still evolving.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 can detect heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.