Skip to content

CVE-2026-35217

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-35217 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
6.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Officially disputed

The CVE record itself is disputed or rejected upstream — a strong candidate for a false positive in scanners. Confirm with a verdict.

Based on NVD record status

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H

NanoMQ contains a protocol-semantics flaw in its MQTT v5 `SUBSCRIBE` handling: if a subscription entry is missing the final 1-byte `Subscription Options` field, the broker may still accept the malformed packet and install the subscription into internal broker state. Under a specific packet-length construction, the same parser flaw also causes a 1-byte out-of-bounds read that crosses the real heap allocation boundary and is detected by ASAN as a `heap-buffer-overflow`. If the consumed byte happens to look acceptable, NanoMQ may continue and append the malformed subscription entry into its internal `subinfol` state. In that case, a `SUBSCRIBE` packet that should be rejected by MQTT rules is instead treated as a successful subscription. Whether ASAN reports the bug does not depend on MQTT's logical `remain` boundary; it depends on whether the read crosses the real heap allocation boundary of the underlying message buffer. In other words, these are not two unrelated issues. They are two manifestations of the same parsing defect: by default, it appears as a semantic vulnerability, and under suitable input conditions, it also becomes a verifiable out-of-bounds read vulnerability.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-35217
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-35217/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-35217)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-35217"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-35217/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-35217"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.