CVE-2026-42010
Redhat Enterprise Linux 10.0 … 9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-42010 is a high-severity Improper Null Termination (CWE-170) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 40% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-28354
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in gnutls. Servers configured with RSA-PSK (Rivest–Shamir–Adleman – Pre-Shared Key) wrongfully matched usernames containing a NUL character with truncated usernames. A remote attacker could exploit this by sending a specially crafted username, leading to an authentication…
more
bypass. This vulnerability allows an attacker to gain unauthorized access by circumventing the authentication process.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect string termination during code review or dynamic analysis.
Input validation directly stops malformed null bytes from being accepted or mishandled when data crosses representation or component boundaries.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can enforce safe string-handling practices that produce correct null termination.
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 enforce correct string/array termination via coding standards, reviews, 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.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, developer training, security testing and checkpoints that reach improper null termination as a coding defect, but leaves a bounded remainder (e.g. outsourced development without full assurance, inconsistent application of guidelines across languages or legacy code, and defects that slip past testing per the SA-3 vs CWE-89 precedent).
A.8.26 requires identifying and specifying security requirements (including resilience against SQL injection or buffer overflows) but does not itself implement any mechanism that stops null-termination errors from being introduced or exploited; the weakness can still be present and exploitable.
A.8.27 mandates establishing and applying secure engineering principles (including secure coding, hardening, and design review) but does not itself remove existing instances of null-termination defects already present in code; per the verb definition and anchors, testing finds while only direct code change removes, and this clause reaches neither first-party code defects nor the removal act
Secure coding standards directly require correct null termination of strings and arrays.
Security testing in development can detect missing or incorrect null terminators before release.