CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-62958NVD status: Deferred

libriscv is a RISC-V sandbox and emulator.

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-62958 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in libriscv, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.9 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected libriscv versions: < 1.18. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.21% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of libriscv you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Libriscvlibriscv< 1.18Not 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
LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
ChangedThe attack can reach beyond the vulnerable component into other systems.
Confidentiality
LowSome restricted data can be read.
Integrity
NoneNothing can be modified.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).

Official description

libriscv is a RISC-V sandbox and emulator. Prior to 1.18, a crafted ELF binary can cause out-of-bounds reads in the host emulator. `Memory<W>::binary_loader` checks `PT_LOAD` program-header bounds, but `Memory<W>::serialize_execute_segment` trusts section-header `sh_offset` and `sh_size` when locating `.text` without verifying the file range against `m_binary.size()`; `Memory<W>::lookup()` has a similar section-table problem. Malformed `.text` or `.symtab` offsets can therefore bypass the program-header checks and point outside the binary buffer, crashing rvlinux. With suitable memory layout or integer overflow, out-of-buffer host heap memory may instead be mapped into the guest by `create_execute_segment()`, potentially exposing host memory. The reported reproducer demonstrates a host SIGSEGV, while memory disclosure through grooming is described as possible rather than demonstrated. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
  • Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

More Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-20)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.