Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-2026-41682 is a medium-severity Signed to Unsigned Conversion Error (CWE-195) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 27th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-28846
Vulnerability Data
pupnp is an SDK for development of UPnP device and control point applications. Prior to version 1.18.5, pupnp is vulnerable to SRRF port confusion due to port truncation via atoi() cast in parse_uri(). This issue has been patched in version…
more
1.18.5.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover conversion errors through static analysis, fuzzing, or targeted unit tests.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can enforce coding rules that prohibit or safely wrap such casts.
Engineering principles can mandate safe integer handling and strong typing to avoid unsafe signed-to-unsigned casts.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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 (static analysis, code review, safe-integer standards) directly prevent signed-to-unsigned conversion errors.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
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 conversion-related defects before release.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that can catch signed-to-unsigned conversion errors during design and coding.
Application security requirements can specify safe integer handling and type-conversion rules.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include data-type safety and overflow prevention.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit unsafe signed-to-unsigned casts and require defensive checks.