Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-8711 is a critical-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in F5 Njs. Its CVSS base score is 9.2 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 5% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-30940
Vulnerability Data
NGINX JavaScript has a vulnerability when the js_fetch_proxy directive is configured with at least one client-controlled NGINX variable (for example, $http_*, $arg_*, $cookie_*) and a location invoking the ngx.fetch() operation from NGINX JavaScript. An unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability…
more
by sending crafted HTTP requests. This may cause a heap buffer overflow in the NGINX worker process leading to a restart. Additionally, attackers can execute code on systems with Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) disabled or when the attacker can bypass ASLR. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
- 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.
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.
Secure-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap 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 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.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect heap overflows before release.