AI Threat Alert
CVE-2026-92786
HIGHLightGBM through 4.7.0 fails to validate child and split array values when parsing text models, allowing attackers to write out-of-bounds memory during SHAP prediction. Attackers can craft malicious model files with invalid node references that trigger out-of-bounds writes at attacker-chosen...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
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-2026-92786?
LightGBM through 4.7.0 fails to validate child and split array values when parsing text models, allowing attackers to write out-of-bounds memory during SHAP prediction. Attackers can craft malicious model files with invalid node references that trigger out-of-bounds writes at attacker-chosen offsets in the leaf_depth_ buffer during feature contribution computation.
Is CVE-2026-92786 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-92786 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-92786?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-92786?
CVE-2026-92786 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.13%.
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
LightGBM through 4.7.0 fails to validate child and split array values when parsing text models, allowing attackers to write out-of-bounds memory during SHAP prediction. Attackers can craft malicious model files with invalid node references that trigger out-of-bounds writes at attacker-chosen offsets in the leaf_depth_ buffer during feature contribution computation.
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:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H