Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-45784 is a medium-severity Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size (CWE-131) vulnerability in Sfackler Openssl. Its CVSS base score is 5.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 3th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
No EU or UK CSIRT advisories indexed for this CVE.
Vulnerability Data
rust-openssl provides OpenSSL bindings for the Rust programming language. From 0.10.50 until 0.10.80, CipherCtxRef::cipher_update_inplace in openssl/src/cipher_ctx.rs incorrectly sized output buffers when used with AES key-wrap-with-padding ciphers EVP_aes_{128,192,256}_wrap_pad. For a non-multiple-of-8 input, OpenSSL writes up to 7 bytes past the end…
more
of the caller's buffer or Vec, producing attacker-controllable heap corruption when the plaintext length is attacker-influenced. This issue is fixed in version 0.10.80.
- 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 security testing and code review can discover incorrect buffer-size computations before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles directly require correct buffer-size arithmetic and bounds-checked allocation.
Input validation can enforce that supplied lengths or counts used in size calculations are within safe bounds.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability of an overflow that results from an incorrect size calculation.
Flaw-remediation processes that include vulnerability scanning or static analysis will surface buffer-size errors.
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 directly prevent buffer-size miscalculations via coding standards, reviews, and testing, while fixing this single weakness only partially fulfills the broader control.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 standards directly require correct buffer-size calculations.
Security testing can detect buffer-size errors before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates size-checking practices that reduce buffer-size miscalculations.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size validation rules.
Secure architecture principles include safe memory-allocation guidelines.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.