CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-56851

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: Oct 07, 2026 | Modified: Oct 08, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.5 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

The Nickname profile can panic with an out-of-bounds slice error when transforming crafted input into a short destination buffer.

Weakness

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatrekor-main-1.5.4-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatgolang1-26-main-1.26.8-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHathelm3-main-3.22.0-0.2.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHathelm4-main-4.3.0-0.2.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatk6v2-main-2.3.0-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatetcd-main-3.7.2-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatbuildah-main-1.45.1-1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatgolang1-27-main-1.27.1-2.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatloki3-7-main-3.7.8-0.3.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatloki3-6-main-3.6.17-0.3.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatprometheus3-13-main-3.13.3-0.2.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatdistribution-main-3.1.2-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatopentelemetry-collector-k8s-main-0.162.0-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatopentelemetry-collector-contrib-main-0.162.0-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatopentelemetry-collector-main-0.162.0-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatoauth2-proxy-main-7.15.5-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatpodman-main-6.1.3-1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatopentofu1-12-main-1.12.7-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatcaddy-main-2.11.7-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatgrafana13-2-main-13.2.3-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatgrafana13-1-main-13.1.7-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatfulcio-main-1.9.0-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatgrafana12-4-main-12.4.12-0.4.hum1*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.8.3RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-rhel9:1792680568*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.8.3RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-webhook-rhel9:1792680570*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.8.3RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-rhel9:1792837466*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.8.3RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-webhook-rhel9:1792838794*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.9.2RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-rhel10:1792680549*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.9.2RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-webhook-rhel10:1792680546*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.9.2RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-rhel10:1792857112*
Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.9.2RedHatopenshift-builds/openshift-builds-shared-resource-webhook-rhel10:1792840655*

Potential Mitigations

  • Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

  • For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

  • Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

  • Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

  • D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

  • Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

  • Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

  • Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

  • Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References