Integer underflow and out-of-bounds read in the HTTP/2 server DATA frame parser in Apache bRPC allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause denial of service by sending a malformed DATA frame with the PADDED flag set and a zero-length payload.
Root Cause:
The HTTP/2 DATA frame handler computed the fragment size from the attacker-controlled payload length and, when the PADDED flag was present, decremented the fragment size before ensuring that the frame contained the mandatory pad length byte. A zero-length padded DATA frame could therefore underflow the unsigned fragment size and read the pad length byte past the end of the frame buffer.
Affected Scenarios:
Apache bRPC servers that accept HTTP/2 traffic are affected when a remote client can send crafted HTTP/2 frames to the server. HTTP/2 may be reached through cleartext h2c detection on an HTTP port or through TLS ALPN negotiation.
How to Fix:
(Choose one of the following options)
- Upgrade Apache bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue.
- Apply this patch: https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3325
Note:
The fix validates that a padded DATA frame has enough payload bytes for the pad length field before decrementing the fragment size or reading the pad length byte. Malformed zero-length padded DATA frames are rejected with HTTP/2 FRAME_SIZE_ERROR.
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.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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