Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-47205 is a medium-severity Use After Free (CWE-416) vulnerability in Envoyproxy Envoy. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 20th 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 SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-39828
Vulnerability Data
Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy designed for cloud-native applications. From 1.36.0 until 1.36.9, 1.37.5, and 1.38.3, a Use-After-Free (UAF) vulnerability leading to a sudden segmentation fault exists in Envoy's ext_authz HTTP filter when processing per-route authorization…
more
overrides concurrently with rapid downstream client disconnects. During standard request lifecycles, Envoy instantiates the ext_authz filter with a foundational authorization client object (client_). If a matched route dictates a dynamic per-route HTTP or gRPC authorization service override, the filter generates a localized client. In the vulnerable implementation, this transient client aggressively overwrote the default client_ unique pointer by executing client_ = std::move(per_route_client). When a client rapidly establishes and subsequently tears down a stream (such as rapidly refreshing a protected WebSocket endpoint), the downstream triggers the ConnectionManagerImpl::doDeferredStreamDestroy() -> ActiveStream::onResetStream() lifecycle. Envoy immediately sequences Filter::onDestroy() in an attempt to securely abort dispatched asynchronous authorization check transactions via client_->cancel(). By destructing the default client abruptly during initiateCall, a memory lifecycle misalignment occurs within the async client manager. The stream teardown fails to reliably track and cancel the dynamically bound asynchronous authorization tasks, orchestrating a sequence where a late asynchronous callback from the network evaluates against a heavily destroyed ActiveStream validation span, generating a UAF process crash. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.36.9, 1.37.5, and 1.38.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
UAF triggers segfault/crash on crafted rapid connect/disconnect traffic against the ext_authz filter, directly enabling application DoS via exploitation.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires applying patches that correct the UAF in ext_authz per-route client handling during rapid stream teardown.
Mandates developer security testing that would detect the memory-lifecycle misalignment between initiateCall and onDestroy in the authorization filter.
Employs memory-protection techniques that limit exploitability of the Use-After-Free triggered by concurrent disconnects and per-route client moves.
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 incorporate memory-safety tooling and reviews that prevent most use-after-free defects.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free issues via scanning or analysis but do not prevent their introduction.
Routine patching removes known use-after-free instances after they have been introduced in released software.
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 use-after-free bugs before release.
Secure SDLC mandates memory-safety practices that reduce use-after-free defects.
Application security requirements can specify memory-management rules that mitigate use-after-free.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety design choices that limit use-after-free exposure.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe avoidance of use-after-free patterns.
Change-management processes help ensure memory-safety fixes are deployed consistently.