CAPEC-9

How the attack unfolds

1. Explore

   The attacker looks for a way in.

   1. [Identify target system] The adversary first finds a target system that they want to gain elevated priveleges on. This could be a system they already have some level of access to or a system that they will gain unauthorized access at a lower privelege using some other means.

   2. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies command line utilities exposed by the target host that contain buffer overflow vulnerabilites. The adversary likely knows which utilities have these vulnerabilities and what the effected versions are, so they will also obtain version numbers for these utilities.

2. Experiment

   They probe what they found.

   3. [Craft overflow command] Once the adversary has found a vulnerable utility, they will use their knownledge of the vulnerabilty to create the command that will exploit the buffer overflow.

3. Exploit

   They carry out the attack.

   4. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary executes the crafted command, gaining elevated priveleges on the machine.

Prerequisites

• The target host exposes a command-line utility to the user.

• The command-line utility exposed by the target host has a buffer overflow vulnerability that can be exploited.

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

• Carefully review the service's implementation before making it available to user. For instance you can use manual or automated code review to uncover vulnerabilities such as buffer overflow.

• 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.

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

• Apply the latest patches to your user exposed services. This may not be a complete solution, especially against a zero day attack.

• Do not unnecessarily expose services.

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

Examples

Attack Example: HPUX passwd
  A buffer overflow in the HPUX passwd command allows local users to gain root privileges via a command-line option.

Attack Example: Solaris getopt
  A buffer overflow in Solaris's getopt command (found in libc) allows local users to gain root privileges via a long argv[0].

MITRE's words, unchanged: CAPEC-9 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.