`CVE-2026-110747`

Severity	7.5 High CVSS 3.1
Weakness	Integer overflow (CWE-190)
Published	28 Oct 2026
Updated	6 Nov 2026

Tagged x_open-source. The CVE's issuer marks the affected code open source.

Published 17 days ago. NVD often adds the list of affected products days or weeks after a CVE is published, and the other sources we check lag too. The scope and status here may change.

Description

ProtobufParser._readStringKey() reads the length prefix of a protobuf map entry's string key into an attacker-controlled int and then checks (_inputPtr + len) <= _inputEnd using signed arithmetic. For values near Integer.MAX_VALUE the addition overflows to a negative value and the check passes even when the input contains no key data. The parser then calls _finishShortText(len), which expands the text buffer to the declared length via TextBuffer.expandCurrentSegment and Arrays.copyOf, throwing OutOfMemoryError: Requested array size exceeds VM limit. An 8-byte malformed message containing a map entry with a declared key length of 0x7FFFFFFF is sufficient. Configured StreamReadConstraints, including maxStringLength, maxNameLength, maxDocumentLength and maxNestingDepth, do not prevent the failure. Applications running with -XX:+ExitOnOutOfMemoryError terminate the JVM. This is the same integer-overflow pattern addressed for other call sites in the remediation associated with CVE-2026-104016 and CVE-2026-104017; the map-key call site was corrected on the 3.x branches only, leaving the corresponding 2.x branches unguarded. Release lines 2.18, 2.19 and 2.20 do not contain _readStringKey() and are not affected by this vector. No privileges or user interaction beyond the ability to submit data for parsing are required. The 3.0 release line and 3.1.0-3.1.5 / 3.2.0-3.2.1 do not contain _readStringKey() and are therefore not affected; the method first appears in 3.1.6 and 3.2.2, mirroring its introduction at 2.21.6 on the 2.x side.

Exploitation status

No public exploit

No exploit has been reported in the sources we check.

CISA KEV not listed
VulnCheck KEV not listed
CISA Vulnrichment exploitation: none
Indexed PoC none indexed
EPSS 0.39% chance in 30 days

Waratek protection

No exploit published

Within Waratek scope. In the sources we check, nobody has published exploit code for this CVE or reported it being exploited.

A public code fix exists.

Protection none
Action unverified
Review automated Upstream data
Record active x_open-source

Decided by	Exploit code for this candidate, published in a reviewed catalogue or a GitHub repository with 5 or more stars, or in use per CISA or VulnCheck; not only a CISA verdict, a forecast, or nothing at all
Finding	This CVE is not listed in CISA KEV or VulnCheck KEV, CISA Vulnrichment records no active exploitation, no reviewed exploit catalogue carries an entry for it, and no GitHub PoC repository for it has 5 or more stars. Nobody has published exploit code worth tracing, so it is not a candidate for a rule ahead of the ones where somebody has; an upstream fix path does exist, so the remediation half of the candidacy still holds. This is a statement about what has been published, not about whether the defect is reachable or serious.
Candidate fix	https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/security/advisories/GHSA-fv7v-rrmh-4qcv : the maintainers' own security advisory: names the version that fixes it, so the fix is the difference between two releases

Decided by

Exploit code for this candidate, published in a reviewed catalogue or a GitHub repository with 5 or more stars, or in use per CISA or VulnCheck; not only a CISA verdict, a forecast, or nothing at all

Finding

This CVE is not listed in CISA KEV or VulnCheck KEV, CISA Vulnrichment records no active exploitation, no reviewed exploit catalogue carries an entry for it, and no GitHub PoC repository for it has 5 or more stars. Nobody has published exploit code worth tracing, so it is not a candidate for a rule ahead of the ones where somebody has; an upstream fix path does exist, so the remediation half of the candidacy still holds. This is a statement about what has been published, not about whether the defect is reachable or serious.

Candidate fix

https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/security/advisories/GHSA-fv7v-rrmh-4qcv : the maintainers' own security advisory: names the version that fixes it, so the fix is the difference between two releases

References

URL	Tags
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/security/advisories/GHSA-fv7v-rrmh-4qcv	advisory

URL

Timeline

Published	2026-10-28	By the CVE Program.
NVD record modified	2026-11-06	NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

Published

2026-10-28

By the CVE Program.

NVD record modified

2026-11-06

NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

How VRT decided (18 of 24 rules ran)

18 of 24 rules ran. The rest didn't run because an earlier rule had already settled the CVE.

# Rule Outcome Status Detail

identity: Does this identifier describe a vulnerability at all? the first rule that matches decides

1 rejected no match CVE Program withdrawal of this identifier

scope: Is it a vulnerability Waratek protects? the first rule that matches decides

2 armr-patch-file no match An ARMR patch file on disk for this CVE

3 armr-secure-rule-file no match An ARMR security-rule template on disk for this CVE

4 manual-classification no match A researcher's recorded decision for this specific CVE

5 manual classification no match Manual classification of this CVE in the legacy dataset

6 non-java-upstream no match A root cause in non-Java code: an OS kernel, a C library, or a bundled runtime

7 oracle-component no match The defect being in a component of a tracked product the agent does not reach: JavaFX, the Java SE installer, the JInitiator browser plug-in, the native WebLogic proxy plug-in, or a native part of Oracle Application Server or Collaboration Suite (HTTP Server, Web Cache, Internet Directory, mail and calendar servers). Oracle gives these no CPE of their own and names them only in the description.

8 java-client-side no match Oracle's own risk-matrix note saying the CVE is reached only through untrusted code in the Java sandbox (applets, Web Start) or only through a client installation of Java, so a server running its own trusted code is not exposed

9 osv-maven no match An OSV.dev record of this CVE affecting a package published to Maven Central. When every such package is one business applications do not use (Minecraft mods and launchers, Fastjson) and no tracked product is named by CPE, it settles the CVE as Outside Waratek scope instead

10 cna-maven-package matched In scope CNA declares the affected component is a Maven artifact

11 known-cpe-product not reached An NVD CPE naming a product ARMR tracks

12 cna-cpe-product not reached A CPE the CNA published naming a tracked product. Oracle publishes these on advisory day, months before NVD.

13 oracle-advisory-family not reached A tracked product family named in Oracle's own risk matrix. CPE cannot carry a suite name, only a module.

14 cna-named-product not reached A tracked product named in words by the CVE's own CNA, on a record with no CPE yet. Apache and Eclipse publish these on advisory day, before NVD adds CPE data.

15 non-deployable-product not reached The only affected product being a sealed appliance image, where Java runs but no -javaagent can be attached

16 unmatched-product not reached No tracked product matched above, and none present at all

disposition: What do we do about one that is? every rule runs

17 patch-hint matched Mitigation candidate References include candidate fix URL (advisory tier): https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/security/advisories/GHSA-fv7v-rrmh-4qcv

18 open-source-maven skipped The affected package being open source on Maven, so the fix can be read

19 poc-derivable skipped An indexed exploit clearing the evidence bar to reverse-engineer, where there is no source to read

20 no-exploit skipped Nothing to build a rule from yet: no published exploit, no CISA record of exploitation and no source-level change to read

21 secure-rule-match no match A vulnerability class already blocked by an ARMR security rule

22 exploited-no-fix-or-poc skipped Somebody exploiting this CVE (a CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, or a CISA verdict of active exploitation), with no fix, source code or PoC to build a rule from

23 below-action-threshold no match Severity is HIGH — only MEDIUM/LOW are deprioritized

24 no-exploit-published decided it matched No exploit published No exploit code has been published, and an upstream fix path does exist, so the remediation half of the candidacy still holds.

NVD ↗ · CVE.org ↗