CVE-2026-95388 in Wireshark
Summary
by MITRE • 09/29/2026
Sharkd utility crash in 4.6.0 to 4.6.8 and 4.4.0 to 4.4.18 allows denial of service
Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 09/29/2026
The vulnerability identified involves a critical stability issue within the Sharkd utility, specifically affecting versions ranging from 4.6.0 through 4.6.8 and 4.4.0 through 4.4.18. This flaw manifests as an application crash that results in a denial of service condition for users relying on this component for network packet analysis or related operational tasks. The root cause typically stems from improper handling of specific input data structures or memory management errors during the processing phase, where the utility fails to validate boundaries or check for null pointers before dereferencing them. Such defects are characteristic of low-level programming errors that compromise the integrity and availability of the software service without requiring any external exploitation beyond triggering the malformed state through normal or slightly modified operational inputs.
From a technical perspective, this issue aligns with common vulnerability classifications such as CWE-401, which denotes missing release of memory after successful allocation leading to resource exhaustion, or more likely in the context of crashes, CWE-787 out-of-bounds write or read if the crash is triggered by buffer overflows. Alternatively, it may fall under CWE-252 unchecked return value if a function fails and returns an error code that is not properly checked before proceeding with operations on potentially invalid data structures. The absence of robust exception handling mechanisms allows these internal errors to propagate up to the main execution loop, causing the application thread to terminate abruptly rather than gracefully recovering or logging the error for diagnostic purposes. This lack of resilience design means that any user interaction capable of inducing this specific code path will result in immediate service interruption.
The operational impact of this vulnerability is primarily centered on availability and reliability. For administrators and security analysts who depend on Sharkd for continuous monitoring, debugging, or forensic analysis, an unexpected crash disrupts workflow and can lead to loss of unsaved data or interrupted capture sessions. In environments where high uptime is critical, such as enterprise network operations centers or incident response teams, repeated crashes could necessitate frequent restarts, thereby reducing the effective availability of the tool. Furthermore, if this utility is integrated into automated pipelines or scripts that expect consistent output, the crash can cause downstream failures in broader security orchestration frameworks, amplifying the impact beyond just the local application instance to affect dependent systems and processes.
Mitigation strategies should focus on both immediate remediation and long-term resilience improvements. The most effective solution is to upgrade the Sharkd utility to a version newer than 4.6.8 or 4.4.18, where developers have presumably addressed these memory management flaws through code reviews and patching. Until an update can be applied, operators should implement workarounds such as monitoring for abnormal termination signals and restarting services automatically via watchdog scripts to minimize downtime. Additionally, input validation at the application boundary is crucial; ensuring that only well-formed data structures are passed into internal processing functions can prevent triggering the vulnerable code paths. Security teams should also consider deploying runtime protection mechanisms like Address Sanitizers during development phases or using memory-safe languages for future iterations of such utilities to inherently reduce the risk of low-level memory corruption vulnerabilities.
In terms of threat modeling, this vulnerability does not typically provide a vector for remote code execution but serves as a reliable method for causing disruption if an attacker has access to trigger specific inputs within the application context. It maps loosely to ATT&CK techniques related to resource hijacking or service stoppage, although it is more accurately classified under software quality defects rather than active exploitation tactics unless leveraged in conjunction with other vulnerabilities. Organizations should prioritize patching this component as part of their regular maintenance cycles to maintain operational continuity and ensure that analytical tools remain available for critical security operations without interruption due to preventable software faults.