CAPEC-46

How the attack unfolds

1. Explore

   The attacker looks for a way in.

   1. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program to perform the buffer overflow on. Adversaries look for applications or programs that accept formatted files, such as configuration files, as input.

2. Experiment

   They probe what they found.

   2. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer.

      1 technique

      • Knowing the type of file that an application takes as input, the adversary takes a normal input file and modifies a single variable or tag to contain a large amount of data. If there is a crash, this means that a buffer overflow attack is possible. The adversary will keep changing single variables or tags one by one until they see a change in behavior.

   3. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing.

      2 techniques

      • Create malicious shellcode that will execute when the program execution is returned to it.
      • Use a NOP-sled in the overflow content to more easily "slide" into the malicious code. This is done so that the exact return address need not be correct, only in the range of all of the NOPs

3. Exploit

   They carry out the attack.

   4. [Overflow the buffer] The adversary will upload the crafted file to the application, causing a buffer overflow.

Prerequisites

• The target program consumes user-controllable data in the form of tags or variables.

• The target program does not perform sufficient boundary checking.

Skills required

• Low skill

  An adversary can simply overflow a buffer by inserting a long string into an adversary-modifiable injection vector. The result can be a DoS.

• High skill

  Exploiting a buffer overflow to inject malicious code into the stack of a software system or even the heap can require a higher skill level.

Consequences

Mitigations

• Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.

• Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.

• Compiler-based canary mechanisms such as StackGuard, ProPolice and the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag. Unless this provides automatic bounds checking, it is not a complete solution.

• Use OS-level preventative functionality. Not a complete solution.

• Do not trust input data from user. Validate all user input.

Weaknesses it exploits

• CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
• CWE-74 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component
• CWE-118 Incorrect Access of Indexable Resource
• CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
• CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
• CWE-680 Integer Overflow to Buffer Overflow
• CWE-697 Incorrect Comparison
• CWE-733 Compiler Optimization Removal or Modification of Security-critical Code

Recent CVEs with these weaknesses

1. 9.6CVE-2026-1081862026-11-10

   Improper Input Validation in Zoom Workplace for Windows may allow an unauthenticated user to conduct an escalation of privilege via network access.

2. 4.9CVE-2026-1054272026-11-10

   Improper input validation in Ivanti EPMM before version 12.10.0.1, 12.9.0.3, and 12.8.0.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to permanently disable all Apache HTTPS services resulting in denial of service.

3. 6.7CVE-2026-1054262026-11-10

   Improper input validation in Ivanti EPMM before version 12.10.0.1, 12.9.0.3, and 12.8.0.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to set arbitrary Linux kernel parameters as root.

4. 4.3CVE-2026-1231782026-11-10

   An insufficient input validation vulnerability in the listed NETGEAR Orbi Models router allows an authenticated administrator connected to the local network to execute unauthorized commands and modify the router’s software and functionalit…

5. 8.8CVE-2026-1249482026-11-10

   Incorrect boundary conditions, use-after-free in the Graphics component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.

6. 8.8CVE-2026-1249472026-11-10

   Incorrect boundary conditions in the Graphics component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160.

7. 8.8CVE-2026-1249262026-11-10

   Incorrect boundary conditions in the WebRTC component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.

8. 8.8CVE-2026-1249242026-11-10

   Incorrect boundary conditions in the Graphics: WebRender component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.

The newest records naming one of them. Each weakness's page lists them all.

Related attack patterns

Part of

• CAPEC-100 Overflow Buffers

Related to

• CAPEC-8 Buffer Overflow in an API Call
• CAPEC-10 Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables

Examples

MITRE's words, unchanged: CAPEC-46 at MITRE. CAPEC is Copyright © 2007–2026, The MITRE Corporation, used under the CAPEC terms of use: “The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC™) for research, development, and commercial purposes. Any copy you make for such purposes is authorized provided that you reproduce MITRE’s copyright designation and this license in any such copy.” CAPEC and the CAPEC logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Credits. All attack patterns.