CVE-2026-53459
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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-2026-53459 is a critical-severity Failing Open (CWE-636) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked in the top 46% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to CP-12 (Safe Mode) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-78895
Vulnerability Data
Bambuddy is a self-hosted print archive and management system for Bambu Lab 3D printers. Starting in version 0.1.6 and prior to version 0.2.4.4, a fail-open in the authentication code allows any attacker to bypass authentication by flooding a public endpoint…
more
to exhaust resources causing database access to fail, granting unauthenticated access to all protected endpoints. Version 0.2.4.4 patches the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
V3.2.1V7.4.1V8.3.3V10.3.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
CP-12 forces entry into a safe mode on detected conditions, limiting exposure but not covering every failure path.
SA-8 requires application of engineering principles that include fail-secure design, reducing the likelihood the weakness is introduced.
SC-24 directly requires the system to fail to a known state that preserves security properties, structurally stopping fallback to a less-secure mode.
Requires generation of appropriate error messages on exceptional conditions, directly enforcing correct handling rather than silent or incorrect behavior.
SI-17 mandates explicit fail-safe procedures that activate on indicated failures, preventing the insecure fallback behavior.
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.
Least-privilege policy and enforcement directly counters the permissive-access fallback example in the CWE.
Hardened baselines and configuration management reduce the chance that error paths default to insecure settings.
Secure-development practices explicitly include designing error and failure handling to remain in a secure state.
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.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.
Application security requirements explicitly include handling of error and exceptional conditions.
Secure architecture and engineering principles require robust exception and error management.