CVE-2026-64203
CVE-2026-64203 — Out-of-Bounds Read Vulnerability in NI LabVIEW when loading VI
There is a memory corruption vulnerability recently discovered in NI LabVIEW that may result in information disclosure or arbitrary code execution. Successful exploitation requires an attacker to get a user to open a specially crafted VI. This vulnerability affects NI LabVIEW 2026 Q3 (26.3.0) and prior versions.
Published Updated Sources: NVD, NI (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
7.8
high · 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
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
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 LabVIEW to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.
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.
- Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| NI | LabVIEW | 0 to < 23.0.0 | Vulnerable |
| NI | LabVIEW | 23.1.0 to < 23.3.10 | Vulnerable |
| NI | LabVIEW | 24.1.0 to < 24.3.7 | Vulnerable |
| NI | LabVIEW | 25.1.0 to < 25.3.5 | Vulnerable |
| NI | LabVIEW | 26.1.0 to < 26.3.1 | 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
Local
Privileges Req
None
User Interaction
Required
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVSS 3.1 | high | 1.8 | 5.9 | ni.com (CNA), NI (CNA), GHSA |
| 8.5 | CVSS 4.0 | high | — | — | NI (CNA) |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
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 7.8 (AV:L)
Aug 25, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 25, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-4vvf-gm8q-cf8p published (high)
Aug 25, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
Source activity
Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.
- 1×CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 25, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
- NIevery CVE for this vendor
- 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.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware 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-2026-64203 is Out-of-Bounds Read Vulnerability in NI LabVIEW when loading VI, a high vulnerability affecting LabVIEW from NI. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-64203. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-64203. 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 7.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% 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.