CVE-2026-3055
CVE-2026-3055 — Insufficient input validation leading to memory overread
Insufficient input validation in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway when configured as a SAML IDP leading to memory overread
Published Updated Sources: NVD, NetScaler (CNA), CISA, FIRST EPSS, GitHub, SOCRadar CTI
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Confirmed
CISA KEV, listed Mar 30, 2026
EPSS
87%
ahead of 99.7% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
9.8
critical · 2 sources
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
Active
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Remediation
The vendor's own words where we have them.
Upgrade ADC to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.
CISA required action
Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.
Federal deadline Apr 2, 2026 — passed 172 days ago
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.
- Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
- Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| NetScaler | ADC | 14.1 to < 66.59 | Vulnerable |
| NetScaler | ADC | 13.1 to < 62.23 | Vulnerable |
| NetScaler | ADC | 13.1 FIPS and NDcPP to < 37.262 | Vulnerable |
| NetScaler | Gateway | 14.1 to < 66.59 | Vulnerable |
| NetScaler | Gateway | 13.1 to < 62.23 | Vulnerable |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Availability
High
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Scope
Unchanged
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Vector
Network
Privileges Req
None
User Interaction
None
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.8 | CVSS 3.1 | critical | 3.9 | 5.9 | NVD |
| 9.3 | CVSS 4.0 | critical | — | — | NetScaler (CNA) |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
What this weakness leads to
MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.
CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
- Read Memory
- Bypass Protection Mechanism
Mitigation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an accept known good input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, boat may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as red or blue. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read
Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.
CISA KEV details
CISA lists a CVE here once it has evidence of exploitation against real targets.
Listed
Mar 30, 2026
Federal deadline
Apr 2, 2026
passed 172 days ago
Ransomware use
Unknown
CISA records ransomware use only for campaigns it has confirmed, so “Unknown” means unrecorded, not ruled out. The deadline binds US federal agencies; for everyone else it is a date to argue against.
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Repositories
19
2 of the 5 sampled are weaponized
Exploit entries
1
Exploit-DB and CTI exploit indexes
Social mentions
Posts naming this CVE. Attention, not evidence of exploitation — it spikes on disclosure and decays whether or not anything is exploited.
Measured outcome: ~460 targets, three confirmed compromises — Citrix NetScaler memory disclosure via CVE-2026-3055, a bug patched months earlier, and a manual, human-run loop. The fully autonomous attempts: zero confirmed hits. The pipeline ran end-to-end, Unit 42 concludes:
@ulissesflores· Aug 16, 2026
O que sobrou medido: ~460 alvos, 3 comprometimentos confirmados — todos via CVE-2026-3055 em Citrix NetScaler, bug corrigido meses antes, com exploração manual, numa campanha antiga à parte. No caminho 100% autônomo: zero confirmações. O pipeline funcionou de ponta a ponta, anota
@ulissesflores· Aug 16, 2026
Citrix NetScaler Critical Flaw Actively Exploited Fortinet confirmed large-scale exploitation of a critical Citrix NetScaler memory overread vulnerability tracked as CVE-2026-3055, with at least three organizations already compromised. #citrix #cve20263055 #cybersecurity
@PulseOfNationEn· Aug 2, 2026
460 targets attempted. 3 Citrix NetScaler systems compromised via CVE-2026-3055, memory exfiltration confirmed. 11 Marimo notebook endpoints hit via CVE-2026-39987.
@carsonmarz· Aug 2, 2026
CISO Daily Briefing: AI agents are now attacking live infra autonomously — OpenAI eval models chained 8 flaws into a Hugging Face/Modal Labs breach (17K+ actions); a DeepSeek-driven agent hit Citrix NetScaler (CVE-2026-3055). Ruflo's MCP bridge has an unauthed CVSS 10.0 RCE
@cloudsa· Jul 30, 2026
35 more posts on this CVEShowing 5 of 40 · Who is discussing this CVE, and how loudlyUnlock freeDetection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable ADC, Gateway.
- Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 20 public PoC repositories were reported.
Groups associated with this CVE
Groups reported in connection with this vulnerability. A reported association, not a confirmed observation of that group using it — and not scoped to any sector or campaign.
- ip37.27.244.22278
usom.phishing-General-List · Mar 19, 2026
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 9.8 (AV:N)
Jun 17, 2026 · NVD
Added to CISA KEV catalog
Mar 30, 2026 · CISA
Initial · CVE published
Mar 23, 2026 · NVD
Source activity
Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.
- 30×SVRS was changedMay 23, 2026 – Aug 29, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
- 9×TweetsJun 4, 2026 – Aug 17, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
5 on the record
- support.citrix.com/support-home/kbsearch/article?articleNumber=CTX696300
Vendor Advisory, NIST
- labs.watchtowr.com/please-we-beg-just-one-weekend-free-of-appliances-citrix-netscaler-cve-2026-3055-memory-overread-part-2/
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST
- www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-3055
US Government Resource
- support.citrix.com/support-home/kbsearch/article?articleNumber=CTX696300&articleURL=NetScaler_ADC_and_NetScaler_Gateway_Security_Bulletin_for_CVE_2026_3055_and_CVE_2026_4368
Vendor Advisory
- nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3055
Vendor Advisory
Coverage
21 stories from the feeds we poll
The Agentic AI threat cluster: Seven incidents, three actors, and what they mean for your exposure
Tenable Blog · Aug 15, 2026
Chinese State Hackers Doubled Their Attack Volume Using DeepSeek AI - Startup Fortune
startupfortune.com · Aug 25, 2026
Chinese Hacker Uses DeepSeek AI to Automate Vulnerability Exploitation - cyberpress.org
cyberpress.org · Aug 22, 2026
Chinese Hacker Uses DeepSeek and Hermes Agent to Launch Autonomous Cyberattacks - gbhackers.com
gbhackers.com · Aug 22, 2026
Chinese Hacker Uses DeepSeek AI to Automate Vulnerability Exploitation - cyberpress.org
cyberpress.org · Aug 22, 2026
16 more reports on this CVEShowing 5 of 21 · Vendor research and security press coverageUnlock freeElsewhere on this site
- NetScalerevery CVE for this vendor
- March 2026what else CISA listed
- Memory Corruptionsame class
- CWE-125other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- Only the 1 indicator(s) reported for this CVE are available; no packet-level or host-forensic artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-3055 is Insufficient input validation leading to memory overread, a critical vulnerability affecting ADC, Gateway from NetScaler. The current evidence lists it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Yes: CISA KEV signal present. Public exploit evidence is: 20 public PoC repositories reported; 2 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 9.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 87% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.