Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R)…: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2026-50109 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R) PCM), with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.3 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R) PCM) versions: See references. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.26% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R) PCM) you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R) PCM) | Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R) PCM) | See references | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- PresentThe target must be in a specific state or configuration for the attack to work.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- LowLimited loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (intel.com).
Official description
Out-of-bounds write for some Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R) PCM) within Ring 3: User Applications may allow a denial of service. Unprivileged software adversary with an unauthenticated user combined with a low complexity attack may enable denial of service. This result may potentially occur via network access when attack requirements are present without special internal knowledge and requires no user interaction. The potential vulnerability may impact the confidentiality (none), integrity (low) and availability (high) of the vulnerable system, resulting in subsequent system confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (none) impacts.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- 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.
- 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, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other vulnerabilities in Intel(R) Performance Counter Monitor (Intel(R) PCM)
- 7.0 High severity
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.