Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-44325

Memory Safety in Free5Gc ≤ 4.2.2

Public PoCMemory Safety
Published
27 May 2026
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0039 32th percentile
Risk Priority 57 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-44325 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Free5Gc Free5Gc. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 32th 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 SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 InjectionA10:2025 Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

free5GC is an open-source implementation of the 5G core network. Prior to 4.2.2, free5GC's NRF root SBI endpoint POST /oauth2/token contains a parser-level type-confusion bug family. The handler in NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/api_accesstoken.go reflects over models.NrfAccessTokenAccessTokenReq, special-cases only plain string and NrfNfManagementNfType fields,…

more

and treats every other field as if it were a single models.PlmnId. The parsed *models.PlmnId is then assigned with reflect.Value.Set() to whichever field name the attacker put in the form body, which panics whenever the destination field's real type is incompatible (slice, different struct, primitive). Gin recovery converts each panic into HTTP 500, but the endpoint remains remotely panicable from a single unauthenticated form-encoded request and is repeatedly triggerable. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.2.2.

CWE(s)
CWE-20CWE-755CWE-843

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1036.001 Invalid Code Signature Stealth
Adversaries may attempt to mimic features of valid code signatures to increase the chance of deceiving a user, analyst, or tool.
attack.mitre.org →
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
attack.mitre.org →
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1212 Exploitation for Credential Access Credential Access
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to collect credentials.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-44319Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2026-5360Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2025-70123Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2025-65561Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2026-44324Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2026-42459Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2025-29632Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2023-47345Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2023-47347Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc
CVE-2025-60633Same product: Free5Gc Free5Gc

Affected Assets

free5gc
free5gc
≤ 4.2.2

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 7 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.5.2
  • V3.2.3
  • V15.3.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SC-24 Fail in Known State good match

Requires the system to fail to a known safe state on specified failures, limiting the impact of unhandled exceptional conditions.

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

SI-17 Fail-safe Procedures good match

Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures triggered by indicated failures, structurally preventing unhandled or mishandled exceptional conditions.

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools partial match

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

SA-8 Security and Privacy Engineering Principles partial match

Engineering principles can require use of type-safe languages, static typing, and runtime type checks that structurally avoid allocating one type and accessing another.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.

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.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

A.5.37 Documented operating procedures partial match
degrades

Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.

A.8.16 Monitoring activities partial match
finds

Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

RHEL 8 (1 rule)
  • V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20

References