Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-48689 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) 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 in the top 49% 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-31956
Vulnerability Data
FastNetMon Community Edition through 1.2.9 contains an off-by-one heap-based buffer overflow in the dynamic_binary_buffer_t class (src/dynamic_binary_buffer.hpp). Five methods (append_dynamic_buffer, append_data_as_pointer, append_data_as_object_ptr, memcpy_from_ptr, memcpy_from_object_ptr) use an incorrect bounds check of the form 'if (offset + length > maximum_internal_storage_size + 1)' instead…
more
of the correct 'if (offset + length > maximum_internal_storage_size)'. This allows writing exactly one byte past the end of the heap-allocated buffer. The class is used pervasively in BGP message encoding/decoding, NetFlow template processing, and Flow Spec NLRI construction. An attacker who can send network traffic (NetFlow, sFlow, IPFIX, or BGP) to a FastNetMon instance can trigger this overflow, potentially achieving arbitrary code execution by corrupting heap metadata. Notably, the append_byte() method uses the correct bounds check, confirming the inconsistency.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.1V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
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.
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.
Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
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 development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.