CVE-2026-44640 — NanoMQ: QUIC Dialer Close Type Confusion
NanoMQ MQTT Broker (NanoMQ) is an all-around Edge Messaging Platform. Prior to 0.24.14, aio->prov_data is stored as nni_quic_conn* during dialing, but read as ex_quic_conn* during dialer close. This type confusion causes invalid object interpretation and leads to close-path hang/crash behavior. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.24.14.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.1% (30-day exploitation probability)+0
- Technical severity (medium)+3
- CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5
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.
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.
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.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Nanomq Nanomq).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
- 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.
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 1.0 | 3.4 | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 4.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.13%
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.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · nanomq/nanomq
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 4.5
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Low CVE-2026-45151 NanoMQ: NULL Pointer Dereference May 29, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-32134 NanoMQ: NULL Pointer Dereference Crash in tcptran_pipe_peer During Session Restore May 19, 2026
- High CVE-2026-32135 NanoMQ has Heap Buffer Overflow in URI Parameter Parsing Apr 20, 2026
- High CVE-2026-34608 nanomq: Heap-Buffer-Overflow in webhook_inproc.c via cJSON_Parse OOB Read Apr 2, 2026
- High CVE-2026-32696 NanoMQ HTTP Auth: Missing username/password can trigger a NULL-pointer strlen() in auth_http.c:set_data(), causing a process crash — SIGSEGV, remotely triggerable Mar 30, 2026
- High CVE-2026-25627 nanomq: OOB Read / Crash (DoS) via Malformed MQTT Remaining Length over WebSocket Mar 30, 2026
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-2026-44640 is "NanoMQ: QUIC Dialer Close Type Confusion", rated Medium. It affects Nanomq (Nanomq); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 4.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.13% 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.