CVE-2026-65315
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-2026-65315 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 Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-46642
Vulnerability Data
Ollama (HEAD f0078ae) contains an uncontrolled memory allocation vulnerability in the GGUF metadata parser that allows remote attackers to crash the server by supplying a crafted GGUF file with attacker-controlled length and count fields in string lengths, tensor dimension counts,…
more
and metadata array counts that are used as allocation sizes without validation against remaining file size. Attackers can upload a sub-1KB crafted GGUF file via the blob upload and model create or pull API endpoints to trigger unrecoverable Go runtime out-of-memory fatal errors or makeslice panics that bypass recovery middleware and crash the entire server process.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly rejects or bounds untrusted size values before any allocation occurs.
Resource quotas and priority allocation limit the system-wide impact of an oversized request.
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.
Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and size checks that prevent unbounded allocations.
Application security requirements mandate bounds checking on size parameters to avoid excessive memory allocation.
Secure architecture principles require resource-limit enforcement that mitigates uncontrolled memory requests.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit allocating memory from untrusted size values without validation.
Security testing in development can detect and block excessive allocation flaws before deployment.