Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-41257 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Jqlang Jq. Its CVSS base score is 6.4 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 4th 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-2 (Flaw Remediation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-29163
Vulnerability Data
jq is a command-line JSON processor. In 1.8.1 and earlier, the jq bytecode VM's data stack tracks its allocation size in a signed int. When the stack grows beyond ≈1 GiB (via deeply nested generator forks), the doubling arithmetic overflows.…
more
The wrapped value is passed to realloc and then used for a memmove with attacker-influenced offsets.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Integer overflow (CWE-190) leading to out-of-bounds write via realloc/memmove enables arbitrary code execution when attacker-controlled JSON input is processed by jq.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires applying patches that correct the signed-integer overflow in jq's stack-size arithmetic before realloc/memmove.
Input validation on JSON depth or generator nesting can block the oversized stack growth that triggers the wrap.
Memory-protection mechanisms (e.g., ASLR, guard pages, or bounds-checked allocators) reduce the chance that the subsequent out-of-bounds memmove succeeds.
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.