Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-40719

Published
15 April 2026
Modified
17 April 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 7.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0037 30th percentile
Risk Priority 57 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-40719 is a high-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Samiam (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 30th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2026-40719 affects the Deadwood component in MaraDNS version 3.5.0036, where attackers can exhaust connection slots by targeting a zone whose authoritative nameserver address cannot be resolved. This vulnerability, published on 2026-04-15, carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H) and maps to CWE-670, indicating a resource exhaustion issue stemming from repeated failed resolution attempts.

Remote attackers require no privileges, authentication, or user interaction to exploit this flaw over the network with low complexity. By sending crafted DNS queries for the problematic zone, they trigger Deadwood to continually attempt connections to the unresolvable nameserver address, depleting available connection slots and causing a denial-of-service condition that impairs the DNS server's availability.

Mitigation details are outlined in the MaraDNS GitHub security advisory (GHSA-cfc6-vhrv-62cj) and the project changelog, accessible at https://github.com/samboy/MaraDNS/security/advisories/GHSA-cfc6-vhrv-62cj and https://maradns.samiam.org/changelog.html, respectively.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Deadwood in MaraDNS 3.5.0036 allows attackers to exhaust connection slots via a zone whose authoritative nameserver address cannot be resolved.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-21607Shared CWE-670
CVE-2026-35343Shared CWE-670
CVE-2026-56307Shared CWE-670
CVE-2026-40200Shared CWE-670
CVE-2026-53404Shared CWE-670
CVE-2023-20558Shared CWE-670
CVE-2023-32675Shared CWE-670
CVE-2026-55276Shared CWE-670
CVE-2023-20921Shared CWE-670
CVE-2024-38365Shared CWE-670

Affected Assets

Samiam
—
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V9.2.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.

Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.

Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.

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.

finds

Security testing in development and acceptance can detect paths that deviate from intended logic.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.

prevents

Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.

prevents

Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.

References