Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-48686 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Pavel-Odintsov Fastnetmon. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 44th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-31842
Vulnerability Data
FastNetMon Community Edition through 1.2.9 contains a stack-based buffer overflow in the BGP NLRI (Network Layer Reachability Information) decoder. The function decode_bgp_subnet_encoding_ipv4_raw() in src/bgp_protocol.cpp reads prefix_bit_length directly from the BGP packet (line 99) without validating it is <= 32 for…
more
IPv4 prefixes. This value is passed to how_much_bytes_we_need_for_storing_certain_subnet_mask() which computes ceil(prefix_bit_length / 8), returning up to 32 bytes for a prefix_bit_length of 255. The result is used as the length argument to memcpy() (line 106), which copies into a 4-byte uint32_t stack variable (prefix_ipv4). This causes a stack buffer overflow of up to 28 bytes, which can be exploited for arbitrary code execution. Additionally, the unvalidated prefix_bit_length is passed to convert_cidr_to_binary_netmask_local_function_copy() (line 111), where a shift of (32 - cidr) with cidr > 32 causes undefined behavior.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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 directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.