CVE-2026-44905
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2026-44905 is a high-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 10th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
No EU or UK CSIRT advisories indexed for this CVE.
Vulnerability Data
Vanetza is an open-source implementation of the ETSI C-ITS protocol suite. In 26.02 and earlier, a denial-of-service vulnerability was identified in the cryptographic verification pipeline of Vanetza. When processing incoming V2X messages, the ASN.1 decoder accepts the structure as syntactically…
more
valid. However, this reveals a logic-based protocol failure where semantic constraints on specific fields are only strictly enforced during OER re-encoding. Specifically, if a crafted packet contains a certificate where the Psid (Provider Service Identifier) sub-type violates subtype constraints (e.g., out-of-range or invalid CHOICE variant), it is accepted during initial parsing, where subtype constraints are not enforced. Later, when StraightVerifyService attempts to calculate a message hash for cryptographic verification, it must re-encode the signing certificate. The underlying ASN.1 wrapper (asn1c_wrapper.cpp) detects the semantic violation during encoding and raises a std::runtime_error. This exception is not caught within the encoding path and propagates to std::terminate, resulting in immediate process termination. This vulnerability is fixed with commit e1a2e2709210d309458c3d77f98d50dec26c0df0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
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 explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
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 can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.
Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.
Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.
Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.