CVE-2026-8806
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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-2026-8806 is a high-severity Expected Behavior Violation (CWE-440) vulnerability in Jvn (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 49th 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-6 (Security and Privacy Function Verification) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-37975
Vulnerability Data
Expected Behavior Violation vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-F Series FX5-ENET/IP Ethernet Module FX5-ENET/IP all versions allows a remote attacker to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition in the affected product by continuously sending a large number of communication packets to…
more
the Ethernet port of the product in a short period of time, increasing the processing load of the product, preventing the internal anomaly-detection processing from being performed, and causing the communication function to stop.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly checks whether implemented functions match their specifications.
Security function verification confirms that functions operate according to their defined expected behavior.
Requiring a documented security architecture and design reduces the chance that implementation deviates from intended behavior.
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.
Security testing and exercises help discover behavior deviations before deployment.
Vulnerability identification can surface spec-violating flaws, while eliminating the weakness reduces some vulnerability backlog.
Routine software maintenance and patching can remediate discovered specification violations.
Secure SDLC practices directly enforce specification compliance and catch expected-behavior violations during development.
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 life cycle mandates verification against specifications, directly reducing expected-behavior violations.
Application security requirements explicitly define expected behavior that must be met.
Secure coding practices enforce adherence to functional specifications during implementation.
Security testing in development and acceptance validates that functions behave as specified.
Change management can catch specification deviations introduced by modifications.