`CVE-2026-118488`

Severity	5.9 Medium CVSS 3.1
Weakness	CWE-770
Published	3 Nov 2026

Published 11 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

In Eclipse Vert.x versions [4.0.0, 4.5.35] or [5.0.0, 5.2.2], when a malicious server keeps sending bytes on an EOL-terminated line (not length-prefixed, for example a simple string [1]), we'll keep growing the buffer without bounds, eventually leading to an OOM. We need to have a configurable limit for EOL-terminated lines. If a malicious server sends a specially crafted RESP response (for example a bulk string [2] with missing CRLF trailer), the parser enters an infinite loop where it keeps parsing the same buffer and pushing the same response to the caller, which may lead e.g. to an OOM if the consumer just buffers the responses. We must fix the parser to avoid this infinite looping.

Exploitation status

Proof of concept only

A proof of concept exists, but no reviewed exploit catalogue lists this CVE.

CISA KEV not listed
VulnCheck KEV not listed
CISA Vulnrichment exploitation: poc CISA recorded that an exploit has been demonstrated. Automatable: no, technical impact: partial.
Indexed PoC none indexed
EPSS 0.43% 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

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/vert-x3/vertx-redis-client/security/advisories/GHSA-7f58-g87w-gx7p : 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/vert-x3/vertx-redis-client/security/advisories/GHSA-7f58-g87w-gx7p : 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/vert-x3/vertx-redis-client/security/advisories/GHSA-7f58-g87w-gx7p	advisory
https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/work_items/522

URL

Timeline

Published	2026-11-03	By the CVE Program.
NVD record modified	2026-11-03	NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

Published

2026-11-03

By the CVE Program.

NVD record modified

2026-11-03

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

How VRT decided (22 of 24 rules ran)

22 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 no match An affected Maven artifact named by the CNA itself

11 known-cpe-product no match An NVD CPE naming a product ARMR tracks

12 cna-cpe-product no match A CPE the CNA published naming a tracked product. Oracle publishes these on advisory day, months before NVD.

13 oracle-advisory-family no match A tracked product family named in Oracle's own risk matrix. CPE cannot carry a suite name, only a module.

14 cna-named-product matched In scope CNA names known products: Eclipse Foundation/Eclipse Vert.x

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/vert-x3/vertx-redis-client/security/advisories/GHSA-7f58-g87w-gx7p

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 withheld CISA Vulnrichment records exploitation "poc" — a demonstrated exploit exists, so severity does not settle it despite no indexed PoC artifact

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.

Products the scope rules checked

The products this CVE's record names, and whether VRT tracks each one. The scope rules decided on these.

Vendor Product Tracked CPE Source

Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Vert.x tracked cna

NVD ↗ · CVE.org ↗