CVE-2026-63566
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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-2026-63566 is a high-severity Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value (CWE-789) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique LSASS Memory (T1003.001); ranked at the 29th 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 SC-6 (Resource Availability) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-91217
Vulnerability Data
Memory allocation with excessive size value in the DTLS handshake reassembly (DtlsReliableHandshake, DtlsReassembler) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows a remote unauthenticated DTLS peer to cause a denial of service through memory exhaustion via crafted…
more
handshake message fragments, because the reassembly buffer for each incoming handshake message was allocated at the 24-bit length declared in the fragment header, without the check against the peer's maximum handshake message size that TLS already applied. A fragment carrying no payload can force an allocation of almost 16 MB, for each of up to 16 pending messages per handshake, before the handshake is authenticated. DTLS servers and DTLS clients are both affected; TLS is not.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Resource quotas and priority allocation limit the system-wide impact of an oversized request.
Input validation directly rejects or bounds untrusted size values before any allocation 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.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent coding flaws that trust unvalidated size values for allocations.
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.