VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-19566: RRWO Net::CIDR::Set · Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input

Affects RRWO Net::CIDR::SetSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 0.23 soon.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.23

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 10 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Net::CIDR::Set and Net-CIDR-Set to 0.23.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RRWONet::CIDR::Set	Affected <0.23	Fixed in 0.23
GitHubNet-CIDR-Set`pkg:github/Net-CIDR-Set`Other threats	Affected <0.23	Fixed in 0.23

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, avoid passing untrusted or unchecked IPv6 prefix lengths to the contains() or add() methods in Net::CIDR::Set. Implement input validation to restrict prefix lengths to valid ranges (0 to 128) before processing.

Description

Net::CIDR::Set versions before 0.23 for Perl allow memory exhaustion and malformed set ranges via unbounded IPv6 prefix lengths. The _encode method accepts any prefix length matching `(0|[1-9][0-9]*)` and passes it to _width2bits(), which builds the mask as `'1' x ($width + 8)`, one character per bit. The _inc() method then unpacks the packed mask into a Perl array of one scalar per byte, so the prefix length alone sets the allocation size: `::/100000000` builds a 100 MB string and a 12.5 million element array. The value being tested is parsed, not just the configured ranges: contains() builds a set from its argument, and _guess_coder() tries the IPv4 coder and then the IPv6 coder, so an IPv4-only set expands an oversized IPv6 prefix length before the mixed address width check rejects it. Any caller that passes untrusted input to contains() or add() can exhaust process memory. A prefix length above 128 is also stored as a range that does not match the requested block: 2001:db8::/129 stringifies back unchanged, contains() of its own base address returns false, and removing it from a set drops the base address while the set still prints as covering it.

Impact

An attacker who can supply untrusted input to the contains() or add() methods can cause the process to exhaust available memory, potentially leading to denial of service. Furthermore, malformed set ranges with prefix lengths above 128 can cause incorrect behavior in set membership checks and removals, potentially affecting application logic relying on accurate CIDR set operations.

Summary

Net::CIDR::Set versions prior to 0.23 improperly validate IPv6 prefix lengths in the _encode method, accepting any numeric prefix length without upper bounds. This leads to excessive memory allocation when large prefix lengths are processed, as the mask string and unpacked array sizes scale with the prefix length. The contains() and add() methods can be exploited by passing untrusted input with oversized prefix lengths, causing memory exhaustion and malformed set ranges. Additionally, prefix lengths above 128 result in ranges that do not match the requested block, causing logical inconsistencies in set operations.

CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-789Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product allocates memory based on an untrusted, large size value, but it does not ensure that the size is within expected limits, allowing arbitrary amounts of memory to be allocated.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Perform adequate input validation against any value that influences the amount of memory that is allocated. Define an appropriate strategy for handling requests that exceed the limit, and consider supporting a configuration option so that the administrator can extend the amount of memory to be used if necessary.
Operation
Run your program using system-provided resource limits for memory. This might still cause the program to crash or exit, but the impact to the rest of the system will be minimized.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Aug 2026, 09:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1284, CWE-789

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats