VulnerabilityPublished 10 Apr 2026Updated 13 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-40198: STIGTSP Net::CIDR::Lite · Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input

Affects STIGTSP Net::CIDR::LiteSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

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

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% 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:H/A:N

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

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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Apr 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 Net::CIDR::Lite and Net-CIDR-Lite to 0.23.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
STIGTSPNet::CIDR::Lite	Affected <0.23	Fixed in 0.23
GitHubNet-CIDR-Lite`pkg:github/Net-CIDR-Lite`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.

Description

Net::CIDR::Lite versions before 0.23 for Perl does not validate IPv6 group count, which may allow IP ACL bypass. _pack_ipv6() does not check that uncompressed IPv6 addresses (without ::) have exactly 8 hex groups. Inputs like "abcd", "1:2:3", or "1:2:3:4:5:6:7" are accepted and produce packed values of wrong length (3, 7, or 15 bytes instead of 17). The packed values are used internally for mask and comparison operations.find() and bin_find() use Perl string comparison (lt/gt) on these values, and comparing strings of different lengths gives wrong results. This can cause find() to incorrectly report an address as inside or outside a range. Example: my $cidr = Net::CIDR::Lite->new("::/8"); $cidr->find("1:2:3"); # invalid input, incorrectly returns true This is the same class of input validation issue as CVE-2021-47154 (IPv4 leading zeros) previously fixed in this module. See also CVE-2026-40199, a related issue in the same function affecting IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to bypass IP access control lists by exploiting improper validation of IPv6 address syntax. This can lead to unauthorized access or incorrect filtering decisions in systems relying on Net::CIDR::Lite for IP range checks. The CVSS score of 7.5 (high) reflects the network attack vector, low complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and an integrity impact without confidentiality or availability impact.

Summary

The vulnerability in Net::CIDR::Lite (pre-0.23) arises from _pack_ipv6() not verifying that uncompressed IPv6 addresses contain exactly 8 hex groups. Inputs with fewer groups (e.g., "abcd", "1:2:3", "1:2:3:4:5:6:7") are accepted and produce packed values of incorrect length. These malformed packed values are used in string comparisons within find() and bin_find(), which rely on Perl string comparison operators. Because string comparisons of different lengths yield incorrect results, find() may incorrectly report an address as within or outside a specified CIDR range, enabling potential IP ACL bypass. This is a syntactic input validation flaw classified under CWE-1286 and is related to CVE-2026-40199, which affects IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses in the same function.

CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
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)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL 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 18 Apr 2026, 14:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats