AI Threat AlertCVE-2026-1484
MEDIUMA flaw was found in the GLib Base64 encoding routine when processing very large input data. Due to incorrect use of integer types during length calculation, the library may miscalculate buffer boundaries. This can cause memory writes outside the allocated buffer. Applications that process untrusted...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
What systems are affected?
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
No patch available
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-1484?
A flaw was found in the GLib Base64 encoding routine when processing very large input data. Due to incorrect use of integer types during length calculation, the library may miscalculate buffer boundaries. This can cause memory writes outside the allocated buffer. Applications that process untrusted or extremely large Base64 input using GLib may crash or behave unpredictably.
Is CVE-2026-1484 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-1484 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-1484?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-1484?
CVE-2026-1484 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.2 (MEDIUM).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
A flaw was found in the GLib Base64 encoding routine when processing very large input data. Due to incorrect use of integer types during length calculation, the library may miscalculate buffer boundaries. This can cause memory writes outside the allocated buffer. Applications that process untrusted or extremely large Base64 input using GLib may crash or behave unpredictably.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-787 — Out-of-bounds Write: The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
- [Requirements] Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- [Architecture and Design] Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:LReferences
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-1484vdb-entryx_refsource_REDHAT
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgiissue-trackingx_refsource_REDHAT
- gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/3870
Timeline
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2025-1537910.0MLflow: RCE via unsanitized model dependency specs
Same package: mlflowCVE-2023-376510.0MLflow: path traversal allows arbitrary file read
Same package: mlflowCVE-2023-27809.8MLflow: path traversal allows arbitrary file read/write
Same package: mlflowCVE-2023-11779.8MLflow: path traversal allows arbitrary file read/write
Same package: mlflowCVE-2026-26359.8mlflow: security flaw enables exploitation
Same package: mlflow