In NLnet Labs Unbound 1.6.0 up to and including 1.25.1, a replay of a wildcard rrset as another piece of data, could be briefly considered DNSSEC secure based only on the RRSIG validation and stored into cache, before later validation treats it as bogus based on NSEC validation. When the resolving thread puts secure on the rrset, and another thread that is on the serve expired path then picks up the updated rrset contents with the secure status for a reply, it can be used to change a specific record, next to a wildcard that could be covered by the wildcard, into the wildcard. A malicious actor can exploit the possible poisonous effect by having any DNSSEC-singed domain (irrelevant to the victim domain) and a CNAME wrapper record that points to a record next to a wildcard (that could be covered by the wildcard). Then quering Unbound for the wildcard sibling record would seed the secure message. A later (after expiry) query for the CNAME wrapper would need to resolve the target sibling record. If the wildcard replay is injected into the response, the wildcard rrset will update the expired sibling record with a secure status before completing proper wildcard validation with NSEC records and eventually treating the CNAME wrapper answer as bogus. The updated poisoned rrset is now secure and points to the wildcard. This vulnerability is explicit for the serve expired path and needs injection of the signed wildcard rrset without the NSEC accompanying rrset.
CVE-2026-46582
Score 3.7 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: LOW) published 2026-07-22. a secondary CVSS source baseline 3.7; sources differ by 0.0.
- Lower severity and no public exploit yet
No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.
- CVSS v3
- 3.7
- EG Score
- 3.7(high)
- EG Risk
- 17(Track)EG Risk 17/100SSVC: Track
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).
How it’s computedSeverity37% × 45%Exploitation0% × 40%Automatability0% × 15%Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence. - EPSS
- —
- KEV
- Not listed
Published
July 22, 2026
Last Modified
July 22, 2026
References (1)
Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-46582(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 8× in last 30d)
Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.
- 2026-07-23 03:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 22:03 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 22:03 UTCGHSA enrichment
- 2026-07-22 19:11 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 19:11 UTCGHSA enrichment
- 2026-07-22 14:58 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 13:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 13:17 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Frequently asked(4)
What is CVE-2026-46582?
When was CVE-2026-46582 disclosed?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-46582?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-46582?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-46582
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-46582?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.