Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-93577

Memory Safety in Gitlab 19.2.0 – 19.2.7

Published
24 September 2026
Modified
28 September 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0055 44th percentile
Risk Priority 69 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-93577 is a critical-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Gitlab Gitlab. Its CVSS base score is 9.9 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 44th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 19.2 before 19.2.7, 19.3 before 19.3.3, and 19.4 before 19.4.1 that under certain conditions could have allowed an authenticated user to execute arbitrary code on the GitLab server…

more

due to an integer overflow issue when compiling a specially crafted regular expression in a CI/CD configuration.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-0723Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2023-4522Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2026-2370Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2023-3900Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2023-3906Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2023-3917Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2023-3904Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2026-87719Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2026-1184Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2026-1092Same product: Gitlab Gitlab

Affected Assets

gitlab
gitlab
19.4.0 · 19.2.0 — 19.2.7 · 19.2.0 — 19.2.7 · 19.3.0 — 19.3.3

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • 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.

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.

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.

PR.PS-06 partial match
prevents

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.

prevents

Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.

degrades

Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.

degrades

Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.

finds

Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.

References