CVE-2026-45684
Memory Safety in Opentelemetry Ebpf Instrumentation 0.7.0 – 0.9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-45684 is a medium-severity Buffer Over-read (CWE-126) vulnerability in Opentelemetry Ebpf Instrumentation. Its CVSS base score is 4.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 7th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-33957
Vulnerability Data
OpenTelemetry eBPF Instrumentation provides eBPF instrumentation based on the OpenTelemetry standard. From version 0.7.0 to before version 0.9.0, OBI's log enricher mishandles writev buffers by reading only the first iovec entry but using the total iov_iter.count as the copy length.…
more
When log injection is enabled, a crafted multi-segment writev call can make OBI read and overwrite memory beyond the first segment. This issue has been patched in version 0.9.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, bounds checking tests) directly finds buffer over-read flaws.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Engineering principles such as memory-safe design and bounds-checked abstractions structurally stop introduction of out-of-bounds reads.
Process isolation limits the blast radius of an over-read to the compromised domain.
Input validation enforces length and index constraints that prevent many externally triggered over-reads.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 prevent introduction of buffer over-read weaknesses.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover buffer over-read flaws via scanning or review.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software removes known instances of buffer over-read bugs.
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 buffer over-reads before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and bounds checking that can prevent buffer over-reads.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and bounds-checking rules.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety and bounds-checking design choices.
Secure coding standards directly require bounds-checked buffer access, mitigating over-reads.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.