Every CVE Search/ Get API key

CVE-2026-32941

Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports

5.7 MediumPublic exploit

Sliver is a command and control framework that uses a custom Wireguard netstack. Versions 1.7.3 and below contain a Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all. The issue was not fixed at the the time of publication.

Attack profile

How easy it is to exploit

Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
Low
User interaction
None

What an attacker can affect

Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Exploit likelihood

0.32%Up 0.3 points since Mar 20, 2026
90%50%10%1%

What each source reports

CVE List Score used 5.7

Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports

Sliver is a command and control framework that uses a custom Wireguard netstack. Versions 1.7.3 and below contain a Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all. The issue was not fixed at the the time of publication.

Record
CVE-2026-32941
CVSS 4.0
5.7 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Weakness
CWE-770, CWE-789
Updated
2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-13518 5.7

Sliver is a command and control framework that uses a custom Wireguard netstack. Versions 1.7.3 and below contain a Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all. The issue was not fixed at the the time of publication.

Record
EUVD-2026-13518
CVSS 4.0
5.7 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Updated
2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-97vp-pwqj-46qc 5.7

Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports

Summary

A Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability exists in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all.

Root Cause Analysis

The C2 envelope framing protocol uses a 4-byte little-endian length prefix to delimit protobuf messages on the wire:

[raw_signature (74 bytes)] [uint32 length] [protobuf data]

In socketReadEnvelope, after reading the length prefix, the server immediately allocates a buffer of the attacker-specified size:

// server/c2/mtls.go
const ServerMaxMessageSize = (2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1  // ~2 GiB

dataLength := int(binary.LittleEndian.Uint32(dataLengthBuf))
if dataLength <= 0 || ServerMaxMessageSize < dataLength {
    return nil, errors.New("[pivot] invalid data length")
}
dataBuf := make([]byte, dataLength)  // ← Allocates up to ~2 GiB

// ... data is read into buffer ...

// Envelope signature verification happens AFTER allocation and read:
if !ed25519.Verify(pubKey, dataBuf, signature) {
    return nil, errors.New("[mtls] invalid signature")
}

Key issues:

  1. Excessive limit: ServerMaxMessageSize is set to (2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1 ≈ 2 GiB, far exceeding any legitimate protobuf envelope (large payloads like screenshots and downloads are chunked at the RPC layer).
  2. Allocation before envelope verification: While the TLS handshake validates the client certificate, the per-envelope ed25519 signature check (ed25519.Verify) occurs after the buffer allocation and io.ReadFull. Once the TLS connection is established, no further cryptographic proof is needed to trigger the allocation.
  3. Yamux amplification: The yamux session allows up to mtlsYamuxMaxConcurrentStreams = 128 concurrent streams. Each stream processes socketReadEnvelope independently, so a single connection can trigger 128 parallel ~2 GiB allocations.
  4. Implant-side exposure: The implant-side readers (ReadEnvelope in mTLS/WireGuard, read() in pivots) have no upper-bound check at all — they accept any dataLength > 0.

The same pattern exists in socketWGReadEnvelope for the WireGuard transport.

Note: The same unbounded allocation pattern is also present in implant-side readers, though it poses no immediate risk to the server 1, 2, 3, 4.

Proof of Concept

PoC Links: mtls_poc.go or Gist Version

  1. Establish mTLS connection: Complete a valid TLS 1.3 handshake presenting a valid implant…
Record
GHSA-97vp-pwqj-46qc
CVSS 4.0
5.7 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Weakness
CWE-770, CWE-789
Updated
2026-11-02
NVD 5.7

Sliver is a command and control framework that uses a custom Wireguard netstack. Versions 1.7.3 and below contain a Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all. The issue was not fixed at the the time of publication.

Record
CVE-2026-32941
CVSS 4.0
5.7 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
CVSS 3.1
6.5 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Weakness
CWE-770, CWE-789
Updated
2026-11-02
OSV 5.7

Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports

Sliver is a command and control framework that uses a custom Wireguard netstack. Versions 1.7.3 and below contain a Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all. The issue was not fixed at the the time of publication.

Record
CVE-2026-32941
CVSS 4.0
5.7 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Weakness
CWE-770, CWE-789
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGHSA-97vp-pwqj-46qc 5.7

Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports

Summary

A Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability exists in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all.

Root Cause Analysis

The C2 envelope framing protocol uses a 4-byte little-endian length prefix to delimit protobuf messages on the wire:

[raw_signature (74 bytes)] [uint32 length] [protobuf data]

In socketReadEnvelope, after reading the length prefix, the server immediately allocates a buffer of the attacker-specified size:

// server/c2/mtls.go
const ServerMaxMessageSize = (2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1  // ~2 GiB

dataLength := int(binary.LittleEndian.Uint32(dataLengthBuf))
if dataLength <= 0 || ServerMaxMessageSize < dataLength {
    return nil, errors.New("[pivot] invalid data length")
}
dataBuf := make([]byte, dataLength)  // ← Allocates up to ~2 GiB

// ... data is read into buffer ...

// Envelope signature verification happens AFTER allocation and read:
if !ed25519.Verify(pubKey, dataBuf, signature) {
    return nil, errors.New("[mtls] invalid signature")
}

Key issues:

  1. Excessive limit: ServerMaxMessageSize is set to (2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1 ≈ 2 GiB, far exceeding any legitimate protobuf envelope (large payloads like screenshots and downloads are chunked at the RPC layer).
  2. Allocation before envelope verification: While the TLS handshake validates the client certificate, the per-envelope ed25519 signature check (ed25519.Verify) occurs after the buffer allocation and io.ReadFull. Once the TLS connection is established, no further cryptographic proof is needed to trigger the allocation.
  3. Yamux amplification: The yamux session allows up to mtlsYamuxMaxConcurrentStreams = 128 concurrent streams. Each stream processes socketReadEnvelope independently, so a single connection can trigger 128 parallel ~2 GiB allocations.
  4. Implant-side exposure: The implant-side readers (ReadEnvelope in mTLS/WireGuard, read() in pivots) have no upper-bound check at all — they accept any dataLength > 0.

The same pattern exists in socketWGReadEnvelope for the WireGuard transport.

Note: The same unbounded allocation pattern is also present in implant-side readers, though it poses no immediate risk to the server 1, 2, 3, 4.

Proof of Concept

PoC Links: mtls_poc.go or Gist Version

  1. Establish mTLS connection: Complete a valid TLS 1.3 handshake presenting a valid implant…
Record
GHSA-97vp-pwqj-46qc
CVSS 4.0
5.7 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Weakness
CWE-770, CWE-789
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGO-2026-4723 No score

Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports in github.com/bishopfox/sliver

Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports in github.com/bishopfox/sliver

Record
GO-2026-4723
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVopenSUSE-SU-2026:21483-1 No score

Security update for govulncheck-vulndb

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

  • Update to version 0.0.20260723T184607 2026-07-23T18:46:07Z (jsc#PED-11136).

Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

  • GO-2026-4730 CVE-2026-33022 GHSA-cv4x-93xx-wgfj
  • GO-2026-4761 CVE-2026-33211 GHSA-j5q5-j9gm-2w5c
  • GO-2026-5102 CVE-2026-45021 GHSA-3vcp-chfh-f6r2
  • GO-2026-5272 CVE-2026-40938 GHSA-94jr-7pqp-xhcq
  • GO-2026-5486 CVE-2026-40924 GHSA-m2cx-gpqf-qf74
  • GO-2026-5542 CVE-2026-40090 GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q
  • GO-2026-5630 CVE-2026-25542 GHSA-rmx9-2pp3-xhcr
  • GO-2026-5643 CVE-2026-40923 GHSA-rx35-6rhx-7858
  • GO-2026-5675 CVE-2026-41492 GHSA-vvf7-6rmr-m29q
  • GO-2026-5711 CVE-2026-40161 GHSA-wjxp-xrpv-xpff
  • GO-2026-5746 CVE-2026-41567 GHSA-x86f-5xw2-fm2r
  • GO-2026-5749 CVE-2026-41328 GHSA-x92x-px7w-4gx4
  • GO-2026-5837 CVE-2026-44840 GHSA-q2m9-6jp9-c6mc
  • GO-2026-5929 CVE-2026-44342 GHSA-26v7-h57m-gh9m
  • GO-2026-5930 CVE-2026-33655 GHSA-6qcr-qxgr-m7fv
  • GO-2026-5933 GHSA-3g4q-2f67-2gvh
  • GO-2026-5934 GHSA-59qp-cfj3-rp64
  • GO-2026-5935 GHSA-7856-g3gv-9wq8
  • GO-2026-5936 CVE-2026-53552 GHSA-26rh-24rg-j3vv
  • GO-2026-5937 CVE-2026-53508 GHSA-2jcc-mxv7-p3f9
  • GO-2026-5938 CVE-2026-53553 GHSA-4g5x-hcwm-82jw
  • GO-2026-5939 CVE-2026-10517 GHSA-698x-9w2p-7vvp
  • GO-2026-5940 CVE-2026-53572 GHSA-6w3m-4hhp-775q
  • GO-2026-5941 CVE-2026-53487 GHSA-gvhc-wv3v-7pf8
  • GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600
  • GO-2026-5944 CVE-2026-50197 GHSA-659f-rgp5-w4wf
  • GO-2026-5945 CVE-2026-6815 GHSA-rmxx-v9rj-vpvg
  • GO-2026-5946 CVE-2026-52831 GHSA-v5px-423j-pf7p
  • GO-2026-5947 CVE-2026-53649 GHSA-xqhv-chqm-fhcc
  • GO-2026-5948 CVE-2026-50554 GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
  • GO-2026-5949 CVE-2026-50553 GHSA-rqrh-8wpv-x7hh
  • GO-2026-5950 CVE-2026-53602 GHSA-339v-266x-79xr
  • GO-2026-5951 CVE-2026-10219 GHSA-6jm8-4fhr-5w64
  • GO-2026-5952 CVE-2026-49834 GHSA-9vcr-p3rj-q5q6
  • GO-2026-5953 CVE-2026-9094 GHSA-c9w5-qp6m-m395
  • GO-2026-5956 CVE-2026-55252 GHSA-h5g6-xmh4-hc37
  • GO-2026-5957 CVE-2026-54158 GHSA-5xfx-xj4h-5p7r
  • GO-2026-5958 CVE-2026-54068 GHSA-gcm7-57gf-953c
  • GO-2026-5959 CVE-2026-54072 GHSA-h29v-hj44-q8cv
  • GO-2026-5961 CVE-2026-54069 GHSA-hvr9-72v2-fff3
  • GO-2026-5962 CVE-2026-54088 GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
  • GO-2026-5963 CVE-2026-54067 GHSA-mvjr-vv3c-w4qv
  • GO-2026-5964 CVE-2026-54066 GHSA-p4m3-mgmm-c664
  • GO-2026-5965 CVE-2026-54070 GHSA-w7cg-whh7-xp28
  • GO-2026-5966 CVE-2026-54089 GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
  • GO-2026-5967 CVE-2026-50551 GHSA-56mp-4f3v-fgj2
  • GO-2026-5968 CVE-2026-54174 GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q
  • GO-2026-5969 GHSA-g936-7jqj-mwv8
  • GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852
  • GO-2026-5973 CVE-2026-54250 GHSA-jxr7-mqhw-9p98
  • GO-2026-5974 CVE-2026-44300 GHSA-wmj8-9953-vff5
  • GO-2026-5975 CVE-2026-50018 GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7
  • GO-2026-5976 CVE-2026-50141 GHSA-g7mm-9vx7-jm7h
  • GO-2026-5977 CVE-2026-50013 GHSA-qrh4-p6v4-mrfg
  • GO-2026-5978 CVE-2026-50125 GHSA-qw5r-ppcg-f8rj
  • GO-2026-5979 CVE-2026-50006 GHSA-xrcf-6jh3-ggvx
  • GO-2026-5980 CVE-2026-50158 GHSA-2c7f-fxww-6w6c
  • GO-2026-5981 GHSA-mqxv-9rm6-w8qc
  • GO-2026-5982 GHSA-pqg7-v6wh-3pfp
  • GO-2026-5984 CVE-2026-53604 GHSA-2p2f-px33-4vv5
  • GO-2026-5985 GHSA-7rx3-5wx3-5v76
  • GO-2026-5986 CVE-2026-61699 GHSA-cm26-5974-52h8
  • GO-2026-5987 CVE-2026-55513 GHSA-g4x6-jcvr-9m3g
  • GO-2026-5988 CVE-2026-54628 GHSA-hwrq-8wxh-q4xv
  • GO-2026-5989 CVE-2026-55512 GHSA-m3cx-mwpg-32jg
  • GO-2026-5990 CVE-2026-54629 GHSA-mf78-3rpf-r784
  • GO-2026-5991 CVE-2026-53603 GHSA-q4vm-pq3q-8wgq
  • GO-2026-5992 CVE-2026-61549 GHSA-qf34-295c-26v8
  • GO-2026-5996 CVE-2026-54450 GHSA-pph6-vfjv-vpjw
  • GO-2026-5997 CVE-2026-54452 GHSA-xgch-x3mx-cm3c
  • GO-2026-5998 CVE-2026-54495 GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
  • GO-2026-5999 CVE-2026-10814 GHSA-jh6h-v6mp-h22v
  • GO-2026-6002 CVE-2026-58196 GHSA-pr64-jmmf-jp54
  • GO-2026-6003 CVE-2026-53714 GHSA-22xc-xg2r-9j7v
  • GO-2026-6004 CVE-2026-52833 GHSA-3v79-m2cg-89ww
  • GO-2026-6005 CVE-2026-53715 GHSA-8fv2-88gg-hm7q
  • GO-2026-6006 CVE-2026-53716 GHSA-cxpq-8v7q-cg56 *…
Record
openSUSE-SU-2026:21483-1
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVSUSE-SU-2026:1135-1 No score

Security update for govulncheck-vulndb

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

Update to version 0.0.20260326T203309 2026-03-26T20:33:09Z (jsc#PED-11136):

Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

  • GO-2026-4513 CVE-2026-32284
  • GO-2026-4514 CVE-2026-32285
  • GO-2026-4518 CVE-2026-32286
  • GO-2026-4526 CVE-2026-32287
  • GO-2026-4700 CVE-2026-32704 GHSA-4j3x-hhg2-fm2x
  • GO-2026-4701 CVE-2026-32720 GHSA-7x23-j8gv-v54x
  • GO-2026-4702 CVE-2026-32301 GHSA-j77h-rr39-c552
  • GO-2026-4703 GHSA-q926-c743-49qj
  • GO-2026-4704 CVE-2026-32606 GHSA-wj2j-qwcf-cfcc
  • GO-2026-4705 CVE-2026-32747 GHSA-h5vh-m7fg-w5h6
  • GO-2026-4706 CVE-2026-32751 GHSA-qr46-rcv3-4hq3
  • GO-2026-4707 CVE-2026-32749 GHSA-qvvf-q994-x79v
  • GO-2026-4708 CVE-2026-32750 GHSA-rjhh-m223-9qqv
  • GO-2026-4709 CVE-2026-32815 GHSA-xp2m-98x8-rpj6
  • GO-2026-4710 CVE-2026-32760 GHSA-5gg9-5g7w-hm73
  • GO-2026-4711 CVE-2026-32758 GHSA-9f3r-2vgw-m8xp
  • GO-2026-4712 CVE-2026-32771 GHSA-f7cq-gvh6-qr25
  • GO-2026-4713 CVE-2026-32759 GHSA-ffx7-75gc-jg7c
  • GO-2026-4714 CVE-2026-32737 GHSA-fgm3-q9r5-43v9
  • GO-2026-4715 CVE-2026-32769 GHSA-hxm7-9q36-c77f
  • GO-2026-4716 CVE-2026-32767 GHSA-j7wh-x834-p3r7
  • GO-2026-4717 CVE-2026-32828 GHSA-j94x-8wcp-x7hm
  • GO-2026-4718 CVE-2026-32768 GHSA-mw24-f3xh-j3qv
  • GO-2026-4719 CVE-2026-32805 GHSA-p799-g7vv-f279
  • GO-2026-4721 CVE-2026-32940 GHSA-4mx9-3c2h-hwhg
  • GO-2026-4722 CVE-2026-32938 GHSA-fq2j-j8hc-8vw8
  • GO-2026-4723 CVE-2026-32941 GHSA-97vp-pwqj-46qc
  • GO-2026-4724 CVE-2026-32254 GHSA-phqm-jgc3-qf8g
  • GO-2026-4725 CVE-2026-25783 GHSA-2v3w-6g35-5f9v
  • GO-2026-4726 CVE-2026-2456 GHSA-34g8-9fpp-46ch
  • GO-2026-4727 CVE-2026-26246 GHSA-44mv-jq72-gj49
  • GO-2026-4728 CVE-2026-32953 GHSA-4w7r-3222-8h6v
  • GO-2026-4729 CVE-2026-2458 GHSA-679f-wmrg-qf57
  • GO-2026-4730 CVE-2026-33022 GHSA-cv4x-93xx-wgfj
  • GO-2026-4731 CVE-2026-24458 GHSA-m5rv-56xx-hfc6
  • GO-2026-4732 CVE-2026-2457 GHSA-ph22-fw5m-w2q9
  • GO-2026-4733 CVE-2026-25780 GHSA-xv2p-wchj-qjhp
  • GO-2026-4734 CVE-2026-2578 GHSA-3rhr-jr63-hwq5
  • GO-2026-4735 CVE-2026-2463 GHSA-fx49-m253-27jj
  • GO-2026-4737 GHSA-594f-3595-c47v
  • GO-2026-4740 GHSA-h9q6-hc68-35rp
  • GO-2026-4742 CVE-2026-32811 GHSA-r8x2-fhmf-6mxp
  • GO-2026-4743 CVE-2026-33066 GHSA-4663-4mpg-879v
  • GO-2026-4744 CVE-2026-21386 GHSA-5mr9-crcg-8wh2
  • GO-2026-4745 CVE-2026-24692 GHSA-cwfj-642j-gfh4
  • GO-2026-4746 CVE-2026-2455 GHSA-gqv7-j2j8-qmwq
  • GO-2026-4747 CVE-2026-33067 GHSA-mvpm-v6q4-m2pf
  • GO-2026-4748 CVE-2026-33081 GHSA-qwxp-6qf9-wr4m
  • GO-2026-4749 CVE-2026-4265 GHSA-xpvf-6qcc-9jqc
  • GO-2026-4750 CVE-2026-32937 GHSA-6g43-577r-wf4x
  • GO-2026-4751 CVE-2026-33132 GHSA-g2pf-ww5m-2r9m
  • GO-2026-4752 CVE-2026-33203 GHSA-3g9h-9hp4-654v
  • GO-2026-4754 CVE-2026-33063 GHSA-4jrw-92fg-4jwx
  • GO-2026-4755 CVE-2026-33192 GHSA-5rvc-5cwx-g5x8
  • GO-2026-4756 CVE-2026-33062 GHSA-7c47-xr7q-p6hg
  • GO-2026-4757 CVE-2026-33064 GHSA-7g27-v5wj-jr75
  • GO-2026-4758 CVE-2026-33065 GHSA-958m-gxmc-mccm
  • GO-2026-4759 CVE-2026-33221 GHSA-g9f6-9775-hffm
  • GO-2026-4761 CVE-2026-33211 GHSA-j5q5-j9gm-2w5c
  • GO-2026-4763 CVE-2026-33191 GHSA-p9hg-pq3q-v9gv
  • GO-2026-4765 GHSA-vccx-p757-pv6h
  • GO-2026-4766 CVE-2026-33194 GHSA-vm69-h85x-8p85
  • GO-2026-4768 CVE-2026-33320 GHSA-4fcp-jxh7-23x8
  • GO-2026-4769 CVE-2026-32691 GHSA-gfgr-6hrj-85ww
  • GO-2026-4770 GHSA-q382-vc8q-7jhj
  • GO-2026-4773 CVE-2026-33252 GHSA-89xv-2j6f-qhc8
  • GO-2026-4774 CVE-2026-30924 GHSA-h8vw-ph9r-xpch
  • GO-2026-4775 CVE-2026-30836 GHSA-q4r8-xm5f-56gw
  • GO-2026-4776 CVE-2026-33283 GHSA-3366-gw57-fcm5
  • GO-2026-4777 CVE-2026-32693 GHSA-439w-v2p7-pggc
  • GO-2026-4778 CVE-2026-32694 GHSA-5cj2-rqqf-hx9p
  • GO-2026-4779 CVE-2026-33322 GHSA-5cx5-wh4m-82fh
  • GO-2026-4780 CVE-2026-33282 GHSA-826q-wrq4-p23x
  • GO-2026-4781 CVE-2026-32692 GHSA-89x7-5m5m-mcmm
  • GO-2026-4782 CVE-2026-2461 GHSA-hf8w-x9h5-5gf9
  • GO-2026-4783 CVE-2026-33281 GHSA-q669-4gmv-g8mf
  • GO-2026-4784 CVE-2026-2476 GHSA-4ppj-6chv-5pgc
  • GO-2026-4785 CVE-2026-33344…
Record
SUSE-SU-2026:1135-1
Updated
2026-11-02

Affected products

Affected packages

Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
github.com/bishopfox/sliver
Go
 through 1.7.3 None known
github.com/bishopfox/sliver
Go
 All versions None known
govulncheck-vulndb
openSUSE:Leap 15.6
From an advisory covering 138 CVEs
 before 0.0.20260326T203309-150000.1.155.2
0.0.20260326T203309-150000.1.155.2
govulncheck-vulndb
openSUSE:Leap 16.0
From an advisory covering 1734 CVEs
 before 0.0.20260723T184607-160000.1.1
0.0.20260723T184607-160000.1.1

Public exploits

Links only. Every CVE stores no exploit code.

Public exploits
SourceLinkDate
PoC in GitHubskoveit/CVE-2026-329412026-03-03

History

History
RecordedChangedSources
affected, facts
first indexedCVE List, EUVD, GitHub Advisories, NVD, OSV, PoC in GitHub

Dates are when Every CVE recorded each change. Upstream dates may differ.

In short

CVE-2026-32941 is a medium vulnerability (CVSS 5.7) in Bishopfox Sliver, published March 17, 2026. Public exploit code exists. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.32%, the 24th percentile. No source names a fixed version.

References

Show 194 moreShow less
This page doesn't list everything

Left out here: 1,541 references and the rest of 4 source descriptions. The JSON record has them.

Pages All vulnerabilities Browse Docs Sources Guide Get API key
MoveEnter Open