CVE-2026-68495

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This high-severity CVE scores 7.5 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.6% (46th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 3 sources updated this weekElevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-90977 (ENISA EUVD)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo release containing the referenced fix is confirmed: check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.6%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).

The CBOR parser in FasterXML jackson-dataformats-binary never invokes StreamReadConstraints.validateNameLength() when decoding JSON object property names, so the maxNameLength limit is not enforced for this format. CBORParser._decodeLongerName() decodes a definite-length property name with no length check, and CBORParser._decodeChunkedName() delegates to the value-oriented _finishChunkedText() routine, which validates maxStringLength rather than maxNameLength. An attacker who can have a CBOR document parsed may therefore embed a single property name of unbounded length; the parser buffers the whole name in memory before returning it, whatever maxNameLength is configured to. Because StreamReadConstraints.maxDocumentLength is also disabled by default, nothing else bounds the name under default settings, so the only limits are the attacker's upload capacity and available heap, leading to memory exhaustion and denial of service. No privileges beyond the ability to submit data to a parsing endpoint are required, and exploitation needs only that the bytes reach CBORFactory parsing, directly or through an ObjectMapper configured with the CBOR module. jackson-core's own JSON parsers enforce maxNameLength incrementally during name decoding; this gap is specific to the binary formats. maxNameLength and validateNameLength were introduced in jackson-core 2.16.0, so releases before 2.16.0 do not contain the constraint that is left unenforced. This issue is tracked together with the Smile parser defect in the same vendor advisory, GHSA-3v8f-v6vx-fmrm, which covers both binary formats. The CBOR parser defect (jackson-dataformats-binary issue #725) is CVE-2026-68495; the Smile parser defect (issue #726) is assigned CVE-2026-68496.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
65
EG Risk 65/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.6%
EPSS %ILE
46th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 1, 2026

Last Modified

October 2, 2026

Advisory Details (4)

Auto-updated Oct 1, 2026
Fix referenced — no release confirmed yet. Sources: github.
Web page

jackson-dataformats-binary/release-notes/VERSION-2.x at 2.18 · FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary · GitHub

https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/blob/2.18/release-notes/VERSION-2.x
Web page

Ensure `maxNameLength` limit enforced for CBOR parser [CVE-2026-68495] · Issue #725 · FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary · GitHub

https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/issues/725
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

Missing maxNameLength enforcement in Smile and CBOR enables memory-exhaustion DoS · Advisory · FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary · GitHub

https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/security/advisories/GHSA-3v8f-v6vx-fmrm

Affected Packages

(3 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
jackson-dataformat-cbor2.7.8-5, 2.7.8-5.1
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
jackson-dataformat-cbor2.7.8-5.1
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
jackson-dataformat-cbor2.7.8-5.1
  • every version on: no fix on record
—

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 47× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. 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. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  2. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  3. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  4. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 00:20 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-28 21:55 UTCOSV refresh
  7. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  8. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  9. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  10. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 14:09 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  13. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  14. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  15. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  16. 2026-10-21 02:44 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  18. 2026-10-19 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  19. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  20. 2026-10-18 03:19 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  22. 2026-10-16 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  23. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  24. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  25. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
Show 29 more
  1. 2026-10-13 10:06 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  3. 2026-10-12 15:45 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-11 19:30 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 16:45 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 14:06 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  8. 2026-10-11 03:36 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  10. 2026-10-10 02:32 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  12. 2026-10-09 01:25 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  14. 2026-10-08 00:15 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  16. 2026-10-06 23:09 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  18. 2026-10-05 22:03 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  20. 2026-10-05 09:32 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  22. 2026-10-03 19:54 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  24. 2026-10-02 18:51 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-02 17:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  26. 2026-10-01 19:22 UTCEG score recompute
  27. 2026-10-01 18:22 UTCEG score recompute
  28. 2026-10-01 17:47 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH
  29. 2026-10-01 17:45 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-68495?
CVE-2026-68495 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 1, 2026. The CBOR parser in FasterXML jackson-dataformats-binary never invokes StreamReadConstraints.validateNameLength() when decoding JSON object property names, so the maxNameLength limit is not enforced for this format. CBORParser._decodeLongerName() decodes a definite-length property name with no…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-68495 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-68495 was published on October 1, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 2, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-68495 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-68495 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.6% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (46th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-68495?
CVE-2026-68495 has a CVSS base score of 7.5 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-68495?
A fix for CVE-2026-68495 is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but EchelonGraph has no release containing it on record. Check that reference and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains the fix and update to it; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-68495

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-68495?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.