Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-44236 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked at the 33th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-82332
Vulnerability Data
rabbitmq-c is a C-language AMQP client library for RabbitMQ. Prior to 0.16.0, a malicious AMQP server can send an undersized connection.tune.frame_max value during amqp_login(), and rabbitmq-c accepts the value in amqp_login_inner() in librabbitmq/amqp_socket.c. amqp_tune_connection() in librabbitmq/amqp_connection.c uses frame_max to reallocate…
more
the outbound buffer without enforcing AMQP_FRAME_MIN_SIZE. Immediate serialization of connection.tune-ok through amqp_frame_to_bytes() writes beyond the undersized heap allocation, causing memory corruption and likely denial of service. An on-path attacker can also trigger the flaw against plaintext AMQP traffic. Code execution is theoretically possible but was not demonstrated. This issue is fixed in version 0.16.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
Secure-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
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.