CVE-2026-95842
Moquette ≤ 0.18.1
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-2026-95842 is a high-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability in Moquette Moquette. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 35th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-85412
Vulnerability Data
Moquette is a lightweight Java MQTT broker. Prior to 0.18.1, SessionEventLoop.run catches only InterruptedException, and SessionEventLoopGroup does not restart a terminated loop. An MQTT command that raises an uncaught exception can terminate an event loop shared by multiple client sessions,…
more
preventing every co-located client from processing PUBLISH, SUBSCRIBE, PUBACK, and other commands. An attacker can select client IDs that map across the available loops to disrupt session processing for the entire broker. This issue is fixed in version 0.18.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
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 SDLC practices explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
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 includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.
Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.
Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.
Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.
Security testing can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.