CVE Intelligence
Medium Memory corruption exploit reference

CVE-2026-54522 — MessagePack::Buffer#clear Use-After-Free that Enables Cross-Buffer Disclosure

MessagePack for Ruby is an implementation of the MessagePack binary serialization format. Prior to 1.8.2, MessagePack::Buffer#clear in ext/msgpack/buffer.c leaves rmem_last, rmem_end, and rmem_owner stale after _msgpack_buffer_shift_chunk returns an rmem page to the shared pool, allowing a subsequent Buffer#write and a second MessagePack::Buffer to alias the page and disclose or corrupt cross-buffer data. This issue is fixed in version 1.8.2.

Published Jul 30, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

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
  • 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.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
Msgpack
Messagepack and 1 more
CVSS base
5.4
Medium · 3 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
Proof of concept
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.

  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

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 (Msgpack Messagepack, Msgpack Msgpack-ruby).
  2. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  3. 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
Msgpack Messagepack < 1.8.2 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Msgpack Msgpack-ruby version < 1.8.2 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
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
2.1 CVSS 4.0 Low — — security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
2.1 CVSS 4.0 Low — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
5.4 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 2.5 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-416 · Use After Free

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSendpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · msgpack/msgpack-ruby
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 5.4
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jul 30, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Msgpack
every CVE for this vendor
Memory corruption
same class
CWE-416
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-57585 MessagePack: Out-of-bounds read/crash on Unpacker reuse after caught error Jun 30, 2026
  • CVE-2026-21452 MessagePack-Java Vulnerable to Remote Denial of Service via Malicious .msgpack Model File Triggering Unbounded EXT Payload Allocation Jan 2, 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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • 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-2026-54522 is "MessagePack::Buffer#clear Use-After-Free that Enables Cross-Buffer Disclosure", rated Medium. It affects Messagepack (Msgpack); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.4 describes technical severity. 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.