Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-53433 is a medium-severity Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity (CWE-407) vulnerability in Junegunn Fzf. Its CVSS base score is 5.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 31th 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 SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-40303
- 🇵🇱 CERT-PL: cert.pl
Vulnerability Data
fzf is vulnerable to a Denial of Service (DoS) due to inefficient HTTP body processing in the --listen mode due to inefficient HTTP body processing using repeated string concatenation, resulting in quadratic time complexity (O(n²)). A crafted POST request with…
more
many small segments can trigger excessive CPU usage during request handling.This allows a single malicious request to monopolize the single‑threaded HTTP server, blocking all other clients and resulting in denial of service. This issue was fixed in version 0.73.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Denial-of-service protection directly reduces the impact of resource exhaustion triggered by worst-case algorithmic inputs.
Resource availability allocation limits blast radius when an inefficient algorithm is forced into its worst case.
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 (code review, complexity analysis, safe algorithm selection) prevent introduction of exploitable worst-case behavior.
Runtime monitoring of software and resources can detect the performance impact of triggered worst-case complexity.
Identifying and recording algorithmic-complexity vulnerabilities directly addresses the root cause before exploitation.
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 can uncover performance issues stemming from algorithmic complexity.
Redundancy of processing facilities can absorb resource exhaustion from inefficient algorithms.
Monitoring activities can identify anomalous resource consumption indicative of algorithmic complexity attacks.
Secure development life cycle includes design reviews that can catch inefficient algorithms before deployment.
Secure system architecture principles encourage selection of algorithms with acceptable worst-case complexity.
Secure coding practices can include guidelines to avoid or mitigate inefficient algorithms.