CVE-2026-33846
Description
A heap buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the DTLS handshake fragment reassembly logic of GnuTLS. The issue arises in merge_handshake_packet() where incoming handshake fragments are matched and merged based solely on handshake type, without validating that the message_length field remains consistent across all fragments of the same logical message. An attacker can exploit this by sending crafted DTLS fragments with conflicting message_length values, causing the implementation to allocate a buffer based on a smaller initial fragment and subsequently write beyond its bounds using larger, inconsistent fragments. Because the merge operation does not enforce proper bounds checking against the allocated buffer size, this results in an out-of-bounds write on the heap. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable without authentication via the DTLS handshake path and can lead to application crashes or potential memory corruption.
Statement
This vulnerability should be classified as an important flaw rather than moderate because it exposes a pre-authentication, remotely reachable heap buffer overflow in the DTLS handshake processing path, which is part of the core protocol handling logic and commonly exposed in network-facing services. The flaw enables an attacker to inject controlled data at attacker-chosen offsets and sizes beyond allocated heap boundaries by exploiting inconsistent message_length handling across fragments, effectively creating a constrained but meaningful heap write primitive. Unlike benign memory safety bugs, this condition is deterministically triggerable with a small number of crafted packets and no environmental dependencies for denial-of-service, and it targets a long-lived parsing state where memory corruption can affect adjacent heap structures. Even if reliable code execution requires additional heap manipulation or layout knowledge, the combination of remote reachability, lack of authentication, controlled memory corruption capability, and trivial crashability significantly elevates the risk profile beyond moderate severity. In real-world deployments, such primitives are often sufficient to enable heap grooming and exploitation chains, particularly in services that repeatedly process attacker-controlled input, making this a materially important security flaw.
Mitigation
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7.5 | N/A | 7.5 |
| Attack Vector | Network | N/A | Network |
| Attack Complexity | Low | N/A | Low |
| Privileges Required | None | N/A | None |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | None |
| Scope | Unchanged | N/A | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality | None | N/A | None |
| Integrity Impact | None | N/A | None |
| Availability Impact | High | N/A | High |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality,Integrity
Technical Impact: Read Memory; Modify Memory; Varies by Context
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.