Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-47319

Published
04 June 2026
Modified
22 July 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 6.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0010 1th percentile
Risk Priority 43 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-47319 is a medium-severity Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value (CWE-789) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 1th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Memory allocation with excessive size value vulnerability in Samsung Open Source rlottie allows Excessive Allocation. This issue affects rlottie: before 0b4e308fa88c72cbb60cc8a2c1d2c2ad89b101dd.

CWE(s)
CWE-789

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
attack.mitre.org →
T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood Impact
Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-55379Shared CWE-789
CVE-2026-53428Shared CWE-789
CVE-2026-33174Shared CWE-789
CVE-2026-65315Shared CWE-789
CVE-2026-35549Shared CWE-789
CVE-2026-40891Shared CWE-789
CVE-2025-26618Shared CWE-789
CVE-2025-27533Shared CWE-789
CVE-2025-20140Shared CWE-789
CVE-2021-47971Shared CWE-789

Affected Assets

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

Input validation directly rejects or bounds untrusted size values before any allocation occurs.

SC-6 Resource Availability partial match

Resource quotas and priority allocation limit the system-wide impact of an oversized request.

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 prevent coding flaws that trust unvalidated size values for allocations.

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

Security testing in development can detect and block excessive allocation flaws before deployment.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and size checks that prevent unbounded allocations.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements mandate bounds checking on size parameters to avoid excessive memory allocation.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
prevents

Secure architecture principles require resource-limit enforcement that mitigates uncontrolled memory requests.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards directly prohibit allocating memory from untrusted size values without validation.

A.8.6 Capacity management none match
none

Capacity management monitors overall resource use but does not prevent individual allocation bugs.

References