CVE-2026-63574
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-2026-63574 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 23th 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-2026-91225
Vulnerability Data
Memory allocation with excessive size value in the OpenPGP signature and user attribute subpacket parsers (SignatureSubpacketsParser.ReadPacket, UserAttributeSubpacketsParser.ReadPacket) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker who can supply a crafted OpenPGP public key,…
more
certificate or signature to cause a denial of service (OutOfMemoryException or memory exhaustion in the parsing process) via a subpacket header using the five-octet length form, because the declared length was used to size the subpacket buffer with no upper bound and without being compared with the size of the enclosing subpacket area or packet, so a few bytes of input could demand an allocation of up to about 2 GB before any subpacket data was read.
- 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.