Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-73193 is a critical-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 40th 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-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-2026-59744
Vulnerability Data
DBI versions before 1.652 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds write on 32-bit perl via an integer wraparound in the output buffer size computed by preparse. preparse reserves its output buffer with `newSV(strlen(statement) * 7 + 16)`, budgeting seven output…
more
bytes per input byte for the longest ':p99999' expansion. The product is computed in STRLEN, which is 32 bits wide on a 32-bit perl build, so a statement of 613,566,757 bytes multiplies to 4,294,967,299, wraps modulo 2^32 to 3, and reserves 19 bytes. The parser then copies the statement out through a raw pointer with no capacity check, writing the whole 585 MB input past the end of the allocation. The 99,999 placeholder limit does not bound this path, which is reached by ordinary non-placeholder content. Any caller that passes an untrusted statement of that length to preparse on a 32-bit perl gets a heap out-of-bounds write of attacker controlled bytes. Builds with a 64-bit STRLEN are not affected, since the wrap there needs a statement of about 2.3 exabytes.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
Secure SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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 SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.