FKIE_CVE-2026-35217

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-07-20 17:17 - Updated: 2026-07-20 19:17
Severity
6.5 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Summary
NanoMQ contains a protocol-semantics flaw in its MQTT v5 `SUBSCRIBE` handling: if a subscription entry is missing the final 1-byte `Subscription Options` field, the broker may still accept the malformed packet and install the subscription into internal broker state. Under a specific packet-length construction, the same parser flaw also causes a 1-byte out-of-bounds read that crosses the real heap allocation boundary and is detected by ASAN as a `heap-buffer-overflow`. If the consumed byte happens to look acceptable, NanoMQ may continue and append the malformed subscription entry into its internal `subinfol` state. In that case, a `SUBSCRIBE` packet that should be rejected by MQTT rules is instead treated as a successful subscription. Whether ASAN reports the bug does not depend on MQTT's logical `remain` boundary; it depends on whether the read crosses the real heap allocation boundary of the underlying message buffer. In other words, these are not two unrelated issues. They are two manifestations of the same parsing defect: by default, it appears as a semantic vulnerability, and under suitable input conditions, it also becomes a verifiable out-of-bounds read vulnerability.
References
security-advisories@github.comhttps://github.com/nanomq/nanomq/security/advisories/GHSA-w4xh-p384-w556
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0https://github.com/nanomq/nanomq/security/advisories/GHSA-w4xh-p384-w556
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "product": "nanomq",
          "vendor": "nanomq",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "\u003c= 0.24.14"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com"
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "NanoMQ contains a protocol-semantics flaw in its MQTT v5 `SUBSCRIBE` handling: if a subscription entry is missing the final 1-byte `Subscription Options` field, the broker may still accept the malformed packet and install the subscription into internal broker state. Under a specific packet-length construction, the same parser flaw also causes a 1-byte out-of-bounds read that crosses the real heap allocation boundary and is detected by ASAN as a `heap-buffer-overflow`.\n\nIf the consumed byte happens to look acceptable, NanoMQ may continue and append the malformed subscription entry into its internal `subinfol` state. In that case, a `SUBSCRIBE` packet that should be rejected by MQTT rules is instead treated as a successful subscription. Whether ASAN reports the bug does not depend on MQTT\u0027s logical `remain` boundary; it depends on whether the read crosses the real heap allocation boundary of the underlying message buffer. In other words, these are not two unrelated issues. They are two manifestations of the same parsing defect: by default, it appears as a semantic vulnerability, and under suitable input conditions, it also becomes a verifiable out-of-bounds read vulnerability."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-35217",
  "lastModified": "2026-07-20T19:17:21.643",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 6.5,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "LOW",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 2.2,
        "impactScore": 4.2,
        "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2026-35217",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "poc"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "no"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "partial"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-07-20T17:53:37.727096Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-07-20T17:17:06.980",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
      "url": "https://github.com/nanomq/nanomq/security/advisories/GHSA-w4xh-p384-w556"
    },
    {
      "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
      "url": "https://github.com/nanomq/nanomq/security/advisories/GHSA-w4xh-p384-w556"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
  "vulnStatus": "Received",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-125"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



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.