Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-7378 is a medium-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Wireshark Wireshark. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 9th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-7378 is a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-122) in sharkd, the remote dissection daemon component of Wireshark, affecting versions 4.6.0 through 4.6.4 and 4.4.0 through 4.4.14. The flaw triggers a crash when processing malformed input, resulting in a denial-of-service condition. It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.5 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H), rated as medium severity due to its local scope and high availability impact.
An attacker with local access can exploit this vulnerability with low complexity and no required privileges, but it necessitates user interaction, such as convincing a user to open or process a specially crafted file or packet capture via sharkd. Successful exploitation causes the sharkd process to crash, disrupting Wireshark's remote dissection functionality and leading to denial of service without affecting confidentiality or integrity.
Wireshark's security advisory WNPA-SEC-2026-49 and the associated GitLab work item (21207) document the issue and provide guidance on mitigation, including recommendations to update to patched versions beyond the affected ranges. Security practitioners should review these references for specific patch details and workarounds.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26312
Vulnerability Data
Crash in sharkd 4.6.0 to 4.6.4 and 4.4.0 to 4.4.14 allows denial of service
- 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 evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.