CVE-2026-42348
Opentelemetry.Opamp.Client ≤ 0.2.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-42348 is a medium-severity Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value (CWE-789) vulnerability in Opentelemetry Opentelemetry.Opamp.Client. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 23th 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 SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-29706
Vulnerability Data
OpenTelemetry.OpAmp.Client is the OpAMP client for OpenTelemetry .NET. Prior to 0.2.0-alpha.1, when receiving responses from the OpAMP server over HTTP, the OpAMP client allocates an unbounded buffer to read all bytes from the server, with no upper-bound on the number…
more
of bytes consumed. This could cause memory exhaustion in the consuming application if the configured OpAMP server is attacker-controlled (or a network attacker can MitM the connection) and an extremely large body is returned in the response. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.2.0-alpha.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Unbounded buffer allocation on HTTP responses directly enables application/system resource exhaustion DoS via exploitation (T1499.004).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of input size/length before allocating buffers, preventing the unbounded read that leads to memory exhaustion.
Requires mechanisms to protect against resource exhaustion DoS attacks, including limits on memory allocated from untrusted HTTP responses.
Enables monitoring of memory consumption and anomalous resource usage that would result from an attacker-controlled large OpAMP response.
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 prevent coding flaws that trust unvalidated size values for allocations.
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 and block excessive allocation flaws before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and size checks that prevent unbounded allocations.
Application security requirements mandate bounds checking on size parameters to avoid excessive memory allocation.
Secure architecture principles require resource-limit enforcement that mitigates uncontrolled memory requests.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit allocating memory from untrusted size values without validation.
Capacity management monitors overall resource use but does not prevent individual allocation bugs.