Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-48095 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in 7-Zip 7-Zip. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 37% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-34838
Vulnerability Data
7-Zip is a file archiver with a high compression ratio. Versions 26.00 and prior contain a heap buffer overflow vulnerability caused by an under-allocation in the NTFS compressed stream buffer (GetCuSize shift UB), potentially allowing attackers to cause arbitrary code…
more
execution or application crashes. CInStream::GetCuSize() in the NTFS handler computes the compression-unit buffer size as (UInt32)1 << (BlockSizeLog + CompressionUnit), and a crafted image with ClusterSizeLog >= 28 and CompressionUnit == 4 drives the exponent to 32, which is undefined behavior and collapses on x86/x64 so _inBuf is allocated as 1 byte. ReadStream_FALSE then writes up to 256 MB of attacker-controlled data into that 1-byte buffer in 64 KB iterations, and because the CInStream object sits only 304 bytes after _inBuf, its vtable pointer is overwritten and the next dispatched call achieves a vtable hijack. On 32-bit builds the overflow is unconditionally reached; on 64-bit it requires the parallel 8 GB _outBuf allocation to succeed, otherwise failing closed to denial of service. The NTFS handler is enabled by default in stock 7z.dll and, via signature-based fallback matching "NTFS " at offset 3, will open a crafted image regardless of file extension during extraction or testing. Version 26.01 fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.