Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-71969 is a high-severity Buffer Underflow (CWE-124) vulnerability in Secmate (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 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-2026-55699
Vulnerability Data
OP-TEE OS through 4.10.0, fixed in commit 7b8b494, contains a buffer underwrite vulnerability in the RSA NOPAD encrypt and decrypt operations within the mbedTLS software backend and SE050 hardware driver that allows a malicious Trusted Application to corrupt secure-world heap…
more
memory by supplying an input length exceeding the RSA modulus size. When src_len exceeds rsa_len, the subtraction expression wraps to a large unsigned value, causing a subsequent memcpy to write attacker-controlled data before the destination buffer in S-EL1 secure-world heap memory.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can discover buffer underwrite flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can enforce bounds on indices or pointers before buffer writes, structurally stopping underwrite conditions.
Memory protection mechanisms limit the blast radius of an out-of-bounds write even if the coding flaw exists.
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 introduction of buffer underwrite flaws via coding standards, reviews, and testing.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover buffer underwrite issues but do not prevent their creation.
Patching removes instances of the weakness after discovery but does not address root-cause prevention in code.
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 in development catches buffer-underflow defects before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent buffer underflow.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and pointer-safety rules.
Secure architecture and engineering principles require safe memory-handling patterns.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds checks.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.