Remote memory corruption via ByteBuf length poisoning
Published Aug 20, 2026 · Updated Aug 20, 2026
Memory corruption in liftoff-sr CIPster allows remote attackers to corrupt memory via crafted EtherNet/IP explicit messages. CipAttribute::GetAttrData and SetAttrData pass a shared ByteBuf pointer into generic EncodeData and DecodeData paths, where DecodeData(kCipByteArrayLength) rewrites ByteBuf size metadata from untrusted attribute input and later BufWriter::append trusts that poisoned length for memcpy operations. Exposure requires an API-enabled deployment that registers the same backing buffer as writable kCipByteArray and kCipByteArrayLength attributes; the published proof of concept demonstrates process-crashing out-of-bounds reads and writes through normal TCP/44818 explicit-message handling.
Summary
What happened
Memory corruption in liftoff-sr CIPster allows remote attackers to corrupt memory via crafted EtherNet/IP explicit messages. CipAttribute::GetAttrData and SetAttrData pass a shared ByteBuf pointer into generic EncodeData and DecodeData paths, where DecodeData(kCipByteArrayLength) rewrites ByteBuf size metadata from untrusted attribute input and later BufWriter::append trusts that poisoned length for memcpy operations. Exposure requires an API-enabled deployment that registers the same backing buffer as writable kCipByteArray and kCipByteArrayLength attributes; the published proof of concept demonstrates process-crashing out-of-bounds reads and writes through normal TCP/44818 explicit-message handling.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2026-76987
- Published
- Aug 20, 2026
- Updated
- Aug 20, 2026
- Vendor
- liftoff-sr
- Product
- CIPster
- Classifications
- CWE-119
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Aug 20, 2026CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 20, 2026Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=1802525be27d33e19a9a83c163e331a1d13b1892
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
- CIPster issue #47 proof of conceptproof of concept · demonstrated
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo