Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-6039 is a medium-severity Numeric Truncation Error (CWE-197) vulnerability in Libreoffice (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 5.4 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 5th 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-2026-36734
Vulnerability Data
LibreOffice can import drawings in the DXF format used by CAD software. A heap buffer overflow existed when importing a DXF polyline. The point count taken from the file was truncated to a 16-bit value when the point buffer was…
more
sized, while the full count was used to fill it, so a polyline whose point count exceeded the 16-bit range was written past the end of the buffer. In fixed versions such oversized polylines are rejected.
- 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 can discover truncation errors through static analysis, dynamic testing, or code review.
Documented development standards and tools can mandate use of safe arithmetic libraries or explicit checks against truncation.
Engineering principles can require safe type conversions and avoidance of narrowing casts that cause truncation.
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 SDLC practices directly prevent truncation errors via reviews, static analysis, and safe type handling.
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 can detect truncation bugs through static analysis and fuzzing.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that can catch numeric truncation during design and code review.
Application security requirements can specify safe numeric handling and data-type constraints.
Secure architecture principles include choosing appropriate data types and avoiding unsafe casts.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit unsafe narrowing conversions and truncation.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.