CVE-2026-95847
Moquette ≤ 0.18.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/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-2026-95847 is a high-severity Resource Injection (CWE-99) vulnerability in Moquette Moquette. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 25th 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-85417
Vulnerability Data
Moquette is a lightweight Java MQTT broker. Prior to 0.18.1, H2PersistentQueue derives a session's message-map name as queue_ plus the client ID and its metadata-map name as queue_ plus the client ID plus _meta. A durable session whose client ID…
more
ends in _meta can therefore make its message map collide with another client's metadata map. The colliding sessions read and write the same H2 MVStore map with incompatible value types, which can corrupt queue head and tail data and cause message loss, misdelivery, failed queue reloads, or exposure of queued content across sessions. 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
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.8V1.3.9V1.3.11V9.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces authorizations on resource access so an injected identifier cannot reach outside the intended sphere.
Enforces information flow rules that block use of untrusted identifiers to reach unauthorized resources.
Directly requires validation of inputs before they are accepted as resource identifiers.
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.
Least-privilege access policy and enforcement limits damage from injected resource identifiers even when input validation is absent.
Network segmentation and unauthorized-access controls reduce the blast radius of successful resource injection.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and sanitization that prevent resource-identifier injection flaws.
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 SDLC mandates input validation and resource-identifier sanitization that directly prevents resource injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls on external identifiers used to access resources.
Secure architecture principles reduce attack surface for resource injection but do not prescribe identifier validation.
Secure coding standards require strict validation and whitelisting of all resource identifiers before use.
Security testing can detect resource-injection flaws but does not itself implement preventive controls.
Information-access-restriction policies limit which resources can be referenced, indirectly reducing injection impact.