CVE-2026-22258VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-22258: OISF suricata · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Affects OISF suricataSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 8.0.3 or 7.0.14 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.0.3, 7.0.14

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 27 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 2026-10-26.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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 suricata to 8.0.3 or 7.0.14; oisf/suricata to 7.0.14.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
OISFsuricata	Affected <7.0.14 >=8.0.0 <8.0.3	Fixed in 8.0.3 7.0.14
GitHuboisf/suricata`pkg:github/oisf/suricata`Other threats	Affected <7.0.14	Fixed in 7.0.14

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade Suricata to versions 7.0.14 or 8.0.3 or later to apply the official patches addressing this vulnerability. Where immediate patching is not feasible, administrators should disable the DCERPC/UDP parser to prevent exploitation via UDP traffic. For DCERPC over TCP and SMB, configure the stream.reassembly.depth parameter to impose strict limits on buffered data size, balancing security and visibility needs; for SMB, carefully evaluate the impact on monitoring before reducing the default unlimited setting. Network segmentation and filtering can be employed to restrict exposure to untrusted sources sending DCERPC traffic. Monitoring Suricata logs for unusual spikes in memory usage or crashes can provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should review and harden network perimeter defenses to limit unsolicited DCERPC traffic from external sources. Regularly auditing Suricata configurations and maintaining up-to-date threat intelligence will help mitigate risks associated with this vulnerability.

Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine. Prior to versions 8.0.3 and 7.0.14, crafted DCERPC traffic can cause Suricata to expand a buffer w/o limits, leading to memory exhaustion and the process getting killed. While reported for DCERPC over UDP, it is believed that DCERPC over TCP and SMB are also vulnerable. DCERPC/TCP in the default configuration should not be vulnerable as the default stream depth is limited to 1MiB. Versions 8.0.3 and 7.0.14 contain a patch. Some workarounds are available. For DCERPC/UDP, disable the parser. For DCERPC/TCP, the `stream.reassembly.depth` setting will limit the amount of data that can be buffered. For DCERPC/SMB, the `stream.reassembly.depth` can be used as well, but is set to unlimited by default. Imposing a limit here may lead to loss of visibility in SMB.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2026-22258 is the potential for denial-of-service conditions on critical network security monitoring infrastructure. Suricata is widely deployed in enterprise, government, and critical infrastructure sectors across Europe for intrusion detection and prevention. An attacker capable of sending crafted DCERPC traffic could exhaust Suricata's memory resources, causing it to crash and lose visibility into network threats. This loss of monitoring can delay detection of other attacks, increasing risk to confidentiality and integrity indirectly. Organizations relying on Suricata for real-time network defense may experience operational disruptions and increased exposure to cyber threats. The impact is heightened in environments where DCERPC traffic is common, such as networks with Windows-based systems and SMB usage. Additionally, limiting SMB stream reassembly to mitigate the vulnerability may reduce visibility into SMB traffic, potentially impacting forensic and threat hunting capabilities. Given the high CVSS score (7.5) and ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction, the threat is significant for European entities with Suricata deployments.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
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)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (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 27 Jan 2026, 16:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400, CWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats