Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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-2026-58096 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (CWE-130) vulnerability in Freebsd Freebsd. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 45th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-66247
Vulnerability Data
LcpDecodeConfig() did not validate the length of received endpoint discriminator options against the minimum required by RFC 1717. Undersized options would trigger an out-of-bounds write. A malicious PPP peer can exploit CVE-2026-58095 and CVE-2026-58096 to crash ppp(8) or potentially execute…
more
arbitrary code as root.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.5.5V4.2.1V4.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover length-parameter inconsistencies through targeted parsing tests.
Input validation enforces correct length-to-data consistency checks on parsed messages before processing.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
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.
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 directly enforce length validation and input sanitization during coding and review.
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.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and length checks that directly address inconsistent length fields.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for handling message lengths and data structures.
Secure architecture principles require robust parsing and bounds checking to prevent length-related flaws.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit improper length handling and enforce defensive parsing practices.
Security testing in development can detect length-inconsistency vulnerabilities before deployment.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.