Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-61666

Published
17 August 2026
Modified
10 September 2026
CVSS Score v4 8.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0034 27th percentile
Risk Priority 44 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-61666 is a high-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.9 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 27th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

websocket-driver is a WebSocket protocol handler with pluggable I/O. Prior to 0.8.2, WebSocket::Driver.server() passes a malformed Host header to URI.parse in lib/websocket/http/request.rb without catching URI::InvalidURIError, allowing a remote client to crash a TCP-backed WebSocket server when the application does not…

more

catch the error from parse(). This issue is fixed in version 0.8.2.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.004 Application or System Exploitation Impact
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities that can cause an application or system to crash and deny availability to users.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-58111Shared CWE-248
CVE-2025-48997Shared CWE-248
CVE-2024-20137Shared CWE-248
CVE-2023-22477Shared CWE-248
CVE-2023-3405Shared CWE-248
CVE-2025-0158Shared CWE-248
CVE-2025-32944Shared CWE-248
CVE-2025-55194Shared CWE-248
CVE-2025-71391Shared CWE-248
CVE-2024-31217Shared CWE-248

Affected Assets

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.

Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.

Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.

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.

PR.PS-06 partial match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.

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.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.

prevents

Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.

prevents

Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.

finds

Security testing can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.

References