Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-73194 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 42th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-59745
Vulnerability Data
DBI versions before 1.652 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds write via an unvalidated numeric placeholder that sets the binder counter in preparse. preparse reserves seven output bytes per input byte, the width of the longest ':p99999' expansion. The ':N'…
more
branch parses the number with `atoi(src)` and assigns it to the binder counter with no range check, so a statement containing ':2147483648' leaves the counter negative (-2147483648 with glibc, where atoi wraps). Each following '?' then expands through `sprintf(start, ":p%d", idx++)` to ':p-2147483648', 14 bytes with the terminating NUL where the buffer budgets 7. The placeholder limit added in 1.650 tests the counter against 99,999, which a negative counter passes. Any caller that preparses an untrusted statement into ':pN' style placeholders gets a heap out-of-bounds write that grows with the number of '?' marks following the poisoned placeholder. The '?' and '%s' return styles compare the parsed number against the expected sequence and error out, and are unaffected.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.7.2V1.4.2V2.1.1V2.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
SI-10 requires validity checks on information inputs, directly stopping acceptance of malformed quantities before they can be used.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
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.
Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
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.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.