CVE-2026-0861 (GCVE-0-2026-0861)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-01-14 21:01 – Updated: 2026-01-16 17:06
VLAI?
Title
Integer overflow in memalign leads to heap corruption
Summary
Passing too large an alignment to the memalign suite of functions (memalign, posix_memalign, aligned_alloc) in the GNU C Library version 2.30 to 2.42 may result in an integer overflow, which could consequently result in a heap corruption. Note that the attacker must have control over both, the size as well as the alignment arguments of the memalign function to be able to exploit this. The size parameter must be close enough to PTRDIFF_MAX so as to overflow size_t along with the large alignment argument. This limits the malicious inputs for the alignment for memalign to the range [1<<62+ 1, 1<<63] and exactly 1<<63 for posix_memalign and aligned_alloc. Typically the alignment argument passed to such functions is a known constrained quantity (e.g. page size, block size, struct sizes) and is not attacker controlled, because of which this may not be easily exploitable in practice. An application bug could potentially result in the input alignment being too large, e.g. due to a different buffer overflow or integer overflow in the application or its dependent libraries, but that is again an uncommon usage pattern given typical sources of alignments.
Severity ?
8.4 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CWE
  • CWE-190 - Integer Overflow or Wraparound
Assigner
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
The GNU C Library glibc Affected: 2.30 , ≤ 2.42 (custom)
Create a notification for this product.
Credits
Igor Morgenstern, Aisle Research
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "LOCAL",
              "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
              "baseScore": 8.4,
              "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
              "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
              "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-0861",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "poc"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "total"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-01-14T21:24:01.342438Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-01-14T21:25:55.741Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      },
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-01-16T17:06:42.010Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/01/16/5"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "glibc",
          "vendor": "The GNU C Library",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThanOrEqual": "2.42",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "2.30",
              "versionType": "custom"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "finder",
          "value": "Igor Morgenstern, Aisle Research"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2026-01-14T05:00:00.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Passing too large an alignment to the memalign suite of functions (memalign, posix_memalign, aligned_alloc) in the GNU C Library version 2.30 to 2.42 may result in an integer overflow, which could consequently result in a heap corruption.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNote that the attacker must have control over both, the size as well as the alignment arguments of the memalign function to be able to exploit this.  The size parameter must be close enough to PTRDIFF_MAX so as to overflow size_t along with the large alignment argument.  This limits the malicious inputs for the alignment for memalign to the range [1\u0026lt;\u0026lt;62+ 1, 1\u0026lt;\u0026lt;63] and exactly 1\u0026lt;\u0026lt;63 for posix_memalign and aligned_alloc.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eTypically the alignment argument passed to such functions is a known constrained quantity (e.g. page size, block size, struct sizes) and is not attacker controlled, because of which this may not be easily exploitable in practice.  An application bug could potentially result in the input alignment being too large, e.g. due to a different buffer overflow or integer overflow in the application or its dependent libraries, but that is again an uncommon usage pattern given typical sources of alignments."
            }
          ],
          "value": "Passing too large an alignment to the memalign suite of functions (memalign, posix_memalign, aligned_alloc) in the GNU C Library version 2.30 to 2.42 may result in an integer overflow, which could consequently result in a heap corruption.\n\nNote that the attacker must have control over both, the size as well as the alignment arguments of the memalign function to be able to exploit this.  The size parameter must be close enough to PTRDIFF_MAX so as to overflow size_t along with the large alignment argument.  This limits the malicious inputs for the alignment for memalign to the range [1\u003c\u003c62+ 1, 1\u003c\u003c63] and exactly 1\u003c\u003c63 for posix_memalign and aligned_alloc.\n\nTypically the alignment argument passed to such functions is a known constrained quantity (e.g. page size, block size, struct sizes) and is not attacker controlled, because of which this may not be easily exploitable in practice.  An application bug could potentially result in the input alignment being too large, e.g. due to a different buffer overflow or integer overflow in the application or its dependent libraries, but that is again an uncommon usage pattern given typical sources of alignments."
        }
      ],
      "impacts": [
        {
          "capecId": "CAPEC-129",
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "CAPEC-129 Pointer Manipulation"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-190",
              "description": "CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-01-16T14:37:33.544Z",
        "orgId": "3ff69d7a-14f2-4f67-a097-88dee7810d18",
        "shortName": "glibc"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "url": "https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33796"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=advisories/GLIBC-SA-2026-0001"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "Integer overflow in memalign leads to heap corruption",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.5.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "3ff69d7a-14f2-4f67-a097-88dee7810d18",
    "assignerShortName": "glibc",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-0861",
    "datePublished": "2026-01-14T21:01:11.037Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-01-12T14:35:11.285Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-01-16T17:06:42.010Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CVE Program Container\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/01/16/5\"}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\", \"shortName\": \"CVE\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-01-16T17:06:42.010Z\"}}, {\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 8.4, \"attackVector\": \"LOCAL\", \"baseSeverity\": \"HIGH\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H\", \"integrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-0861\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"poc\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"total\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-01-14T21:24:01.342438Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-01-14T21:25:28.506Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"Integer overflow in memalign leads to heap corruption\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"finder\", \"value\": \"Igor Morgenstern, Aisle Research\"}], \"impacts\": [{\"capecId\": \"CAPEC-129\", \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"CAPEC-129 Pointer Manipulation\"}]}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"The GNU C Library\", \"product\": \"glibc\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"2.30\", \"versionType\": \"custom\", \"lessThanOrEqual\": \"2.42\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"datePublic\": \"2026-01-14T05:00:00.000Z\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33796\"}, {\"url\": \"https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=advisories/GLIBC-SA-2026-0001\"}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.5.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Passing too large an alignment to the memalign suite of functions (memalign, posix_memalign, aligned_alloc) in the GNU C Library version 2.30 to 2.42 may result in an integer overflow, which could consequently result in a heap corruption.\\n\\nNote that the attacker must have control over both, the size as well as the alignment arguments of the memalign function to be able to exploit this.  The size parameter must be close enough to PTRDIFF_MAX so as to overflow size_t along with the large alignment argument.  This limits the malicious inputs for the alignment for memalign to the range [1\u003c\u003c62+ 1, 1\u003c\u003c63] and exactly 1\u003c\u003c63 for posix_memalign and aligned_alloc.\\n\\nTypically the alignment argument passed to such functions is a known constrained quantity (e.g. page size, block size, struct sizes) and is not attacker controlled, because of which this may not be easily exploitable in practice.  An application bug could potentially result in the input alignment being too large, e.g. due to a different buffer overflow or integer overflow in the application or its dependent libraries, but that is again an uncommon usage pattern given typical sources of alignments.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"Passing too large an alignment to the memalign suite of functions (memalign, posix_memalign, aligned_alloc) in the GNU C Library version 2.30 to 2.42 may result in an integer overflow, which could consequently result in a heap corruption.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNote that the attacker must have control over both, the size as well as the alignment arguments of the memalign function to be able to exploit this.  The size parameter must be close enough to PTRDIFF_MAX so as to overflow size_t along with the large alignment argument.  This limits the malicious inputs for the alignment for memalign to the range [1\u0026lt;\u0026lt;62+ 1, 1\u0026lt;\u0026lt;63] and exactly 1\u0026lt;\u0026lt;63 for posix_memalign and aligned_alloc.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eTypically the alignment argument passed to such functions is a known constrained quantity (e.g. page size, block size, struct sizes) and is not attacker controlled, because of which this may not be easily exploitable in practice.  An application bug could potentially result in the input alignment being too large, e.g. due to a different buffer overflow or integer overflow in the application or its dependent libraries, but that is again an uncommon usage pattern given typical sources of alignments.\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-190\", \"description\": \"CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"3ff69d7a-14f2-4f67-a097-88dee7810d18\", \"shortName\": \"glibc\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-01-16T14:37:33.544Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-0861\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-01-16T17:06:42.010Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-01-12T14:35:11.285Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"3ff69d7a-14f2-4f67-a097-88dee7810d18\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-01-14T21:01:11.037Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"glibc\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.2"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.