EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (HeroDevs) lists FasterXML jackson-dataformat-protobuf versions 2.21.6 up to but not including 2.21.8, 2.22.0 up to but not including 2.22.4, 3.1.6 up to but not including 3.1.8 and 3.2.2 up to but not including 3.2.4 as affected, and FasterXML jackson-dataformat-protobuf versions 2.21.8, 2.22.4, 3.1.8 and 3.2.4 as unaffected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
ProtobufParser._readStringKey() reads the length prefix of a protobuf map entry's string key into an attacker-controlled int and then checks (_inputPtr + len) <= _inputEnd using signed arithmetic. For values near Integer.MAX_VALUE the addition overflows to a negative value and the check passes even when the input contains no key data. The parser then calls _finishShortText(len), which expands the text buffer to the declared length via TextBuffer.expandCurrentSegment and Arrays.copyOf, throwing OutOfMemoryError: Requested array size exceeds VM limit.
An 8-byte malformed message containing a map entry with a declared key length of 0x7FFFFFFF is sufficient. Configured StreamReadConstraints, including maxStringLength, maxNameLength, maxDocumentLength and maxNestingDepth, do not prevent the failure. Applications running with -XX:+ExitOnOutOfMemoryError terminate the JVM.
This is the same integer-overflow pattern addressed for other call sites in the remediation associated with CVE-2026-104016 and CVE-2026-104017; the map-key call site was corrected on the 3.x branches only, leaving the corresponding 2.x branches unguarded. Release lines 2.18, 2.19 and 2.20 do not contain _readStringKey() and are not affected by this vector. No privileges or user interaction beyond the ability to submit data for parsing are required. The 3.0 release line and 3.1.0-3.1.5 / 3.2.0-3.2.1 do not contain _readStringKey() and are therefore not affected; the method first appears in 3.1.6 and 3.2.2, mirroring its introduction at 2.21.6 on the 2.x side.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it