Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-41144 is a uncategorised-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Nasa Fprime. Its CVSS base score is 0.0.
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 35th 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-24577
Vulnerability Data
F´ (F Prime) is a framework that enables development and deployment of spaceflight and other embedded software applications. Prior to version 4.2.0, the bounds check byteOffset + dataSize > fileSize uses U32 addition that wraps around on overflow. An attacker-crafted…
more
DataPacket with byteOffset=0xFFFFFF9C and dataSize=100 overflows to 0, bypassing the check entirely. The subsequent file write proceeds at the original ~4GB offset. Additionally, Svc/FileUplink/File.cpp:20-31 performs no sanitization on the destination file path. Combined, these allow writing arbitrary data to any file at any offset. The impact is arbitrary file write leading to remote code execution on embedded targets. Note that this is a logic bug. ASAN does not detect it because all memory accesses are within valid buffers — the corruption occurs in file I/O. Version 4.2.0 contains a patch. No known workarounds are available.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.