Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2026-48706 is a medium-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Envoyproxy Envoy. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 47th 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-2026-39825
Vulnerability Data
Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy designed for cloud-native applications. From 1.34.0 until 1.35.13, 1.36.9, 1.37.5, and 1.38.3, a vulnerability exists in Envoy's TCP StatsD sink (TcpStatsdSink), where the thread-local flusher buffer can be overflowed by exceptionally…
more
long statistic names (e.g., >16KiB). During formatting, TcpStatsdSink reserves a single contiguous memory slice of 16KiB (FLUSH_SLICE_SIZE_BYTES). If formatting a single metric exceeds the remaining capacity, the flusher initiates a buffer rotation but incorrectly continues to allocate another fixed 16KiB slice. If an attacker can trigger a statistic name longer than 16KiB—for example, by sending an HTTP or gRPC request with an extremely long request path (:path) that is recorded by the grpc_stats filter configured with stats_for_all_methods: true—the flusher will attempt to copy the metric name using memcpy operations beyond the allocated heap buffer boundaries. This leads to a heap write overflow, which can cause immediate denial-of-service (process crash) or potential remote code execution (RCE). This vulnerability is fixed in 1.35.13, 1.36.9, 1.37.5, and 1.38.3.
- 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.
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.