Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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-2026-5444 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Orthanc-Server Orthanc. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (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.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2026-5444 is a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the PAM image parsing logic of Orthanc. The issue arises when Orthanc processes a crafted PAM image embedded in a DICOM file, where image dimensions are multiplied using 32-bit unsigned arithmetic. Specially chosen values trigger an integer overflow during buffer size calculation, resulting in allocation of a small buffer followed by a much larger write operation during pixel processing. It is classified under CWE-787 with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H) and was published on 2026-04-09.
Exploitation requires local access, low attack complexity, no privileges, and user interaction, such as processing a malicious DICOM file. A local attacker can achieve high integrity and availability impacts, with no confidentiality impact, potentially leading to data corruption or system crashes via the buffer overflow.
Mitigation details are available in related advisories, including CERT KB at https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/536588, the Orthanc website at https://www.orthanc-server.com/, and https://www.machinespirits.de/.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-20924
Vulnerability Data
A heap buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the PAM image parsing logic. When Orthanc processes a crafted PAM image embedded in a DICOM file, image dimensions are multiplied using 32-bit unsigned arithmetic. Specially chosen values can cause an integer overflow…
more
during buffer size calculation, resulting in the allocation of a small buffer followed by a much larger write operation during pixel processing.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
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.
Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
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.
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 and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
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.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.