VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026Updated 21 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-57222: OISF suricata · Incorrect Comparison

Affects OISF suricataSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 8.0.6 or 7.0.17 when convenient.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS

0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable: Attackers cannot reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-09-21.

Patch

Available – fixed in 8.0.6, 7.0.17

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 18 Sep 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 5 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 OISF suricata to 8.0.6 or 7.0.17.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
OISFsuricata	Affected >=8.0.0 <8.0.6	Fixed in 8.0.6
OISFsuricata	Affected <7.0.17	Fixed in 7.0.17

AI-suggested

Upgrade Suricata to version 7.0.17 or later on the 7.0 release line, or to version 8.0.6 or later on the 8.0 release line. These versions contain the official fix for this vulnerability. No other mitigation is required once patched.

Description

CVE-2026-57222 is a vulnerability in Suricata, a network intrusion detection and prevention system. Versions prior to 7.0.17 and 8.0.6 have an incorrect comparison in the IPPair hash implementation, where the IP address family is not checked before reusing state. This flaw can cause state from one IP family (IPv4 or IPv6) to be incorrectly applied to another, affecting tracking and detection rules. The issue is fixed in Suricata versions 7.0.17 and 8.0.6.

Impact

The vulnerability can lead to incorrect detection state in Suricata, potentially causing detection rules to behave improperly by mixing state between IPv4 and IPv6 address pairs. This affects the integrity of network traffic analysis and detection filters but does not impact confidentiality or availability. The CVSS score is 5.3 (medium severity) with no confidentiality or availability impact, only integrity impact.

CWE-697Incorrect Comparison (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weakness
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Double Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Flash 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 Nov 2026, 01:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-697

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats