Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-43994 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Coturn Project Coturn. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 37th 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 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-2026-37941
Vulnerability Data
Coturn is a free open source implementation of TURN and STUN Server. Versions prior to 4.10.0 contain a stack buffer overflow in decode_oauth_token_gcm(). A uint16_t nonce_len field read from an attacker-supplied OAuth access token (0-65535) is passed directly to memcpy()…
more
as the copy length into a 256-byte stack buffer (oauth_encrypted_block.nonce[256]) without bounds checking. The overflow occurs before AES-GCM authentication is verified, the attacker does not need to know the OAuth key or produce a valid AES-GCM token. Up to 735 bytes of attacker-controlled data are written past the buffer, may corrupt adjacent stack data, including control-flow data depending on compiler, ABI, and mitigations. Requires --oauth mode (non-default). This may provide a plausible RCE primitive depending on exploit mitigations; because coturn is widely deployed for WebRTC TURN/STUN and --oauth is commonly recommended, impact can be broad. This issue has been fixed in version 4.10.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it 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 development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.