CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
mediumpublic exploit

CVE-2026-6554

CVE-2026-6554 — infinte loop in libpcap before 1.10.7

libpcap BPF interpreter treats the offset in the 'ja L' BPF instruction as a signed integer to implement looping via backward jumps, but it does not limit the number of loop iterations. In particular uncommon use cases a crafted filter program can cause the interpreter to loop infinitely.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, The Tcpdump Group (CNA), 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

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

The Tcpdump Group

libpcap

CVSS base

5.5

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade to libpcap 1.10.7.

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.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
The Tcpdump Grouplibpcap0 to < 1.10.7Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.5CVSS 3.1medium1.83.6tcpdump.org (CNA), The Tcpdump Group (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

MITRE

CWE-835 · Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')

  • DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
  • DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)
  • DoS: Amplification

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-835

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

15

1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 15 public PoC repositories were reported.

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 5.5 (AV:L)

    Sep 5, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Sep 5, 2026 · NVD

  4. CVE published by MITRE.

    Sep 5, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

1 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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-2026-6554 is infinte loop in libpcap before 1.10.7, a medium vulnerability affecting libpcap from The Tcpdump Group. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 15 public PoC repositories reported; 1 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 5.5 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.