Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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-2026-55209 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-77802
Vulnerability Data
resdata is software for reading and writing result files from the Eclipse reservoir simulator. Prior to 6.2.9, resdata insufficiently validates numeric fields, grid dimensions, keyword sizes, and array indexes while parsing untrusted GRDECL files in lib/resdata/rd_kw_grdecl.cpp and lib/resdata/rd_grid.cpp. Malformed COORD,…
more
ZCORN, CORSNUM, ACTNUM, or MAPAXES data can reach rd_grid_alloc_GRDECL_kw__ with inconsistent lengths, while unbounded floating-point conversion can exceed the intended parser buffer. In a network service that accepts untrusted GRDECL files, these conditions can cause a classic buffer overflow, out-of-bounds reads, invalid array access, NULL pointer dereference, memory corruption, or service termination. This issue is fixed in version 6.2.9.
- 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.
Documented development standards and tools can enforce null-safety rules and safe pointer usage.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
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.
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.
Secure development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
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.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
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.