CVE-2026-16243 (GCVE-0-2026-16243)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-07-21 17:46 – Updated: 2026-07-21 17:46
VLAI
Title
Eclipse OMR : arraycmp SIMD implementation does not check if the number of bytes to compare is zero
Summary
In Eclipse OMR versions up to 0.11, the arraycmp SIMD implementation for Z and P does not check if the number of bytes to compare is zero.
Severity
5.7 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L
CWE
Assigner
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
Eclipse Foundation Eclipse OMR Affected: 0.1 , < 0.11 (custom)
Unaffected: 0 , < 0.1 (custom)
Unaffected: 0.11 (custom)
Create a notification for this product.
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "Eclipse OMR",
          "vendor": "Eclipse Foundation",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "0.11",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "0.1",
              "versionType": "custom"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "0.1",
              "status": "unaffected",
              "version": "0",
              "versionType": "custom"
            },
            {
              "status": "unaffected",
              "version": "0.11",
              "versionType": "custom"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "In Eclipse OMR versions up to 0.11, the arraycmp SIMD implementation for Z and P does not check if the number of bytes to compare is zero."
            }
          ],
          "value": "In Eclipse OMR versions up to 0.11, the arraycmp SIMD implementation for Z and P does not check if the number of bytes to compare is zero."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV4_0": {
            "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
            "attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "baseScore": 5.7,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
            "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "subAvailabilityImpact": "LOW",
            "subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
            "userInteraction": "ACTIVE",
            "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L",
            "version": "4.0",
            "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
            "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
          },
          "format": "CVSS",
          "scenarios": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "GENERAL"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-125",
              "description": "CWE-125 Out-of-bounds read",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-07-21T17:46:25.674Z",
        "orgId": "e51fbebd-6053-4e49-959f-1b94eeb69a2c",
        "shortName": "eclipse"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "url": "https://github.com/eclipse-omr/omr/pull/8349"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://github.com/eclipse-omr/omr/pull/8348"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/work_items/195"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "Eclipse OMR : arraycmp SIMD implementation does not check if the number of bytes to compare is zero",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.4"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "e51fbebd-6053-4e49-959f-1b94eeb69a2c",
    "assignerShortName": "eclipse",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-16243",
    "datePublished": "2026-07-21T17:46:25.674Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-07-20T06:42:55.700Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-07-21T17:46:25.674Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-16243\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"emo@eclipse.org\",\"published\":\"2026-07-21T18:16:56.727\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-07-21T18:16:56.727\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Received\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"In Eclipse OMR versions up to 0.11, the arraycmp SIMD implementation for Z and P does not check if the number of bytes to compare is zero.\"}],\"affected\":[{\"source\":\"emo@eclipse.org\",\"affectedData\":[{\"vendor\":\"Eclipse Foundation\",\"product\":\"Eclipse OMR\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"0.1\",\"lessThan\":\"0.11\",\"versionType\":\"custom\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"0\",\"lessThan\":\"0.1\",\"versionType\":\"custom\",\"status\":\"unaffected\"},{\"version\":\"0.11\",\"versionType\":\"custom\",\"status\":\"unaffected\"}]}]}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV40\":[{\"source\":\"emo@eclipse.org\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"4.0\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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\",\"baseScore\":5.7,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"HIGH\",\"attackRequirements\":\"PRESENT\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"LOW\",\"userInteraction\":\"ACTIVE\",\"vulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"vulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"vulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"subConfidentialityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subIntegrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subAvailabilityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"exploitMaturity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"confidentialityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"integrityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"availabilityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackVector\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackComplexity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackRequirements\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedPrivilegesRequired\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedUserInteraction\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Safety\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Automatable\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Recovery\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"valueDensity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"providerUrgency\":\"NOT_DEFINED\"}}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"emo@eclipse.org\",\"type\":\"Primary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-125\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/eclipse-omr/omr/pull/8348\",\"source\":\"emo@eclipse.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/eclipse-omr/omr/pull/8349\",\"source\":\"emo@eclipse.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/work_items/195\",\"source\":\"emo@eclipse.org\"}]}}"
  }
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.