Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-5403 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Wireshark Wireshark. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 6th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-5403 affects the SBC codec dissector in Wireshark versions 4.6.0 through 4.6.4 and 4.4.0 through 4.4.14. The vulnerability causes a crash due to heap-based buffer overflows (CWE-122 and CWE-787), enabling denial of service and possible code execution. Published on 2026-05-01, it has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
An attacker with local access can exploit this vulnerability with low complexity and no required privileges, but it necessitates user interaction, such as convincing a Wireshark user to open a malicious packet capture file. Successful exploitation leads to denial of service through application crashes or potential code execution, resulting in high impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability on the local system.
For mitigation guidance and patches, refer to the Wireshark security advisory WNPA-SEC-2026-16 at https://www.wireshark.org/security/wnpa-sec-2026-16.html and the related GitLab issue tracker at https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/21103.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26459
Vulnerability Data
SBC codec crash in Wireshark 4.6.0 to 4.6.4 and 4.4.0 to 4.4.14 allows denial of service and possible code execution
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
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 ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 in development and acceptance can detect heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.