CVE Intelligence
Medium Memory corruption

CVE-2026-111458 — ssldump Heap Buffer Overflow in FAN/1 X.509 Fingerprint Formatting

The fanx_fingerprint function in ssl/sslxprint.c of ssldump allocates a heap buffer for formatting FAN/1 X.509 certificate fingerprints. The allocation size is computed as strlen(b64) + strlen(hex) + 31, but the format string "fan1:x509:server:passive:%s:sha256:%s" contains 33 fixed characters in addition to the two variable-length fields and a null terminator, requiring strlen(b64) + strlen(hex) + 34 bytes. This miscalculation results in a 3-byte heap-based buffer overflow on every invocation of the function with valid inputs. The overflow occurs because sprintf writes the full formatted string into the undersized heap buffer without bounds checking. An attacker who can supply a crafted pcap file containing a TLS X.509 certificate to a user running ssldump with FAN/1 fingerprinting enabled (for example with the -j -N options) can trigger the overflow. The resulting heap corruption may lead to denial of service through a crash or, in a worst-case scenario, arbitrary code execution in the context of the user running ssldump. The vulnerability is deterministic and requires no special privileges beyond the ability to provide input to the tool.

Published Oct 16, 2026 · Updated Oct 16, 2026 · Sources: CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, NIST National Vulnerability Database, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: CIRCL

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.1% (30-day exploitation probability)+0
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.09%
ahead of 1% of scored CVEs · Oct 16, 2026
Affects
Adulau
Ssldump
CVSS base
6.8
Medium · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Adulau Ssldump).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (memory corruption), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Adulau Ssldump ≤ 1.9.0 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Active
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
6.8 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — 5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.8 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — CIRCL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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:X (score shown at the top: 5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-122 · Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
  • Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.
endpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Source status changed · Received → Deferred
    Oct 16, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · Published → Received
    Oct 16, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record published
    Oct 16, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 6.8
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · → Published
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • CVE published
    Oct 16, 2026 · CIRCL

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× References added · Oct 16, 2026 – Oct 16, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 16, 2026 – Oct 16, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Adulau
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-122
other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-111458 is "ssldump Heap Buffer Overflow in FAN/1 X.509 Fingerprint Formatting", rated Medium. It affects Ssldump (Adulau); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.09% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.