VulnerabilityPublished 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26932: Elastic Packetbeat · Improper Validation of Array Index

Affects Elastic PacketbeatSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 26 Feb 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 30 Oct 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ElasticPacketbeat	Affected >=9.0.0 <=9.2.4 >=8.0.0 <=8.19.10	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-26932, organizations should first verify if Packetbeat is configured to monitor PostgreSQL traffic and if the affected versions (8.0.0 or 9.0.0) are in use. Until a patch is released, consider disabling the pgsql protocol monitoring feature in Packetbeat if PostgreSQL traffic analysis is not critical. If monitoring is essential, deploy Packetbeat behind network controls that restrict access to trusted sources to reduce the risk of crafted packet injection. Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure of the monitored PostgreSQL ports. Monitor Packetbeat logs and system stability for unexpected crashes or restarts. Engage with Elastic support or community channels for updates on patches or workarounds. Once a patch becomes available, prioritize timely deployment. Additionally, consider deploying redundant monitoring solutions or failover mechanisms to maintain visibility during potential Packetbeat outages.

Description

Improper Validation of Array Index (CWE-129) in the PostgreSQL protocol parser in Packetbeat can lead Denial of Service via Input Data Manipulation (CAPEC-153). An attacker can send a specially crafted packet causing a Go runtime panic that terminates the Packetbeat process. This vulnerability requires the pgsql protocol to be explicitly enabled and configured to monitor traffic on the targeted port.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-26932 is denial of service due to the forced termination of the Packetbeat process. Organizations relying on Packetbeat for real-time network monitoring and analysis of PostgreSQL traffic may experience loss of visibility into database communications, potentially delaying detection of other security incidents or performance issues. This can affect operational monitoring, incident response, and compliance reporting. Since Packetbeat is often deployed in environments with critical infrastructure, such as financial services, healthcare, and cloud providers, disruption of monitoring services can have downstream effects on security posture and operational continuity. The requirement for the pgsql protocol to be enabled limits the scope to environments actively monitoring PostgreSQL traffic, but in such cases, the impact can be significant. The vulnerability does not allow for data confidentiality or integrity compromise but can degrade availability of monitoring tools.

CWE-129Improper Validation of Array Index (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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)
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

discuss.elastic.co/t/packetbeat-8-19-11-9-2-5-security-update-esa-2026-10/385247 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 17:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-129

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats