Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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-2026-55958 is a high-severity Return of Wrong Status Code (CWE-393) vulnerability in Wolfssl Wolfssl. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Steganography (T1001.002); ranked at the 37th 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-39546
Vulnerability Data
Out-of-bounds write in the Renesas TSIP TLS 1.3 transcript buffer. In tsip_StoreMessage() the capacity check guarding the fixed message bag (MSGBAG_SIZE) sets an error code but fails to return, so execution falls through to an XMEMCPY that writes past the…
more
end of the buffer once the accumulated TLS 1.3 handshake transcript exceeds MSGBAG_SIZE (8 KB), corrupting adjacent heap state and potentially causing a remote denial of service crash. The bag is sized to hold a normal handshake, so this is reached only by an unusually large but valid certificate chain, or by a malicious or man-in-the-middle server sending an oversized handshake message to a client that does not strictly verify the chain. This only affects builds using the Renesas TSIP TLS port (WOLFSSL_RENESAS_TSIP_TLS) as a TLS 1.3 client on Renesas MCUs with TSIP hardware enabled, and is rated High within those builds. All other configurations are unaffected.
- 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 at post-design stages directly exercises code paths and can identify functions returning incorrect status codes.
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.
Verification of correct security/privacy function operation will surface incorrect status codes that alter expected 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.
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.
Secure SDLC practices such as code review, unit testing, and static analysis directly prevent incorrect status codes from being returned.
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.