VulnerabilityPublished 25 Mar 2026Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-28894: Apple iOS and iPadOS · Improper Input Validation

Affects Apple iOS and iPadOSSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 26.4 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 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 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 26.4, 15.7.5, 14.8.5

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 25 Mar 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 29 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

Upgrade iOS and iPadOS to 26.4; macOS to 26.4, 15.7.5 or 14.8.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
AppleiOS and iPadOS	Affected <26.4	Fixed in 26.4
ApplemacOS	Affected <26.4	Fixed in 26.4
ApplemacOS	Affected <15.7.5	Fixed in 15.7.5
ApplemacOS	Affected <14.8.5	Fixed in 14.8.5

AI-suggested

Organizations should prioritize updating all affected Apple devices to iOS 26.4, iPadOS 26.4, and the corresponding macOS versions (Sequoia 15.7.5, Sonoma 14.8.5, Tahoe 26.4) as soon as possible. Beyond patching, network-level protections such as intrusion prevention systems (IPS) and firewalls should be configured to detect and block anomalous traffic patterns that may exploit input validation flaws. Monitoring device logs for unusual crashes or service interruptions can help identify attempted exploitation. Employing network segmentation to isolate critical Apple devices can limit the blast radius of potential attacks. Organizations should also educate users and IT staff about the importance of timely updates and maintaining secure device configurations. Regular vulnerability scanning and penetration testing focusing on Apple device environments can help identify residual risks. Finally, maintaining an incident response plan that includes DoS scenarios will improve organizational readiness.

Description

A denial-of-service issue was addressed with improved input validation. This issue is fixed in iOS 26.4 and iPadOS 26.4, macOS Sequoia 15.7.5, macOS Sonoma 14.8.5, macOS Tahoe 26.4. A remote attacker may be able to cause a denial-of-service.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-28894 is denial-of-service, which can cause affected Apple devices to become unresponsive or crash, interrupting user activities and potentially critical business operations. For organizations relying on iOS and iPadOS devices for communication, mobile workflows, or as part of their IT infrastructure, this could lead to operational downtime and productivity loss. Since the vulnerability requires no authentication or user interaction, attackers can exploit it remotely, increasing the risk of widespread disruption. Although no confidentiality or integrity impact exists, the availability impact alone can be significant, especially in environments where Apple devices are integral to daily operations, such as healthcare, finance, and government sectors. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers may develop exploits once patches are widely deployed. Failure to patch promptly could expose organizations to targeted DoS attacks, potentially as part of larger multi-vector campaigns.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
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 · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 3 Apr 2026, 03:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats