CVE-2026-14801 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-14801 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-14801: A security vulnerability has been detected in GPAC 26.03-DEV-rev342-g80071f700-master. The impacted element is the function txtin_probe_duration of the file src/filters/load_text.c of the component TeXML File Handler. Such manipulation of the argument txml_timescale leads to divide by zero. An attack has to be approached locally. The name of the patch is 86a5191f2e750c767253e27ed6cfd6d547afebc2. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

CVE-2026-14801 References

External References

• https://github.com/gpac/gpac/
• https://github.com/gpac/gpac/commit/86a5191f2e750c767253e27ed6cfd6d547afebc2
• https://github.com/gpac/gpac/issues/3610
• https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-14801
• https://vuldb.com/submit/850854
• https://vuldb.com/vuln/376395
• https://vuldb.com/vuln/376395/cti

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• Flooding CAPEC-125 An adversary consumes the resources of a target by rapidly engaging in a large number of interactions with the target. This type of attack generally exposes a weakness in rate limiting or flow. When successful this attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the service and can cause the target to crash. This attack differs from resource depletion through leaks or allocations in that the latter attacks do not rely on the volume of requests made to the target but instead focus on manipulation of the target's operations. The key factor in a flooding attack is the number of requests the adversary can make in a given period of time. The greater this number, the more likely an attack is to succeed against a given target.
• Excessive Allocation CAPEC-130 An adversary causes the target to allocate excessive resources to servicing the attackers' request, thereby reducing the resources available for legitimate services and degrading or denying services. Usually, this attack focuses on memory allocation, but any finite resource on the target could be the attacked, including bandwidth, processing cycles, or other resources. This attack does not attempt to force this allocation through a large number of requests (that would be Resource Depletion through Flooding) but instead uses one or a small number of requests that are carefully formatted to force the target to allocate excessive resources to service this request(s). Often this attack takes advantage of a bug in the target to cause the target to allocate resources vastly beyond what would be needed for a normal request.
• Resource Leak Exposure CAPEC-131 An adversary utilizes a resource leak on the target to deplete the quantity of the resource available to service legitimate requests.
• TCP Fragmentation CAPEC-494 An adversary may execute a TCP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of avoiding filtering rules of network controls, by attempting to fragment the TCP packet such that the headers flag field is pushed into the second fragment which typically is not filtered.
• UDP Fragmentation CAPEC-495 An attacker may execute a UDP Fragmentation attack against a target server in an attempt to consume resources such as bandwidth and CPU. IP fragmentation occurs when an IP datagram is larger than the MTU of the route the datagram has to traverse. Typically the attacker will use large UDP packets over 1500 bytes of data which forces fragmentation as ethernet MTU is 1500 bytes. This attack is a variation on a typical UDP flood but it enables more network bandwidth to be consumed with fewer packets. Additionally it has the potential to consume server CPU resources and fill memory buffers associated with the processing and reassembling of fragmented packets.
• ICMP Fragmentation CAPEC-496 An attacker may execute a ICMP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of consuming resources or causing a crash. The attacker crafts a large number of identical fragmented IP packets containing a portion of a fragmented ICMP message. The attacker these sends these messages to a target host which causes the host to become non-responsive. Another vector may be sending a fragmented ICMP message to a target host with incorrect sizes in the header which causes the host to hang.
• BlueSmacking CAPEC-666 An adversary uses Bluetooth flooding to transfer large packets to Bluetooth enabled devices over the L2CAP protocol with the goal of creating a DoS. This attack must be carried out within close proximity to a Bluetooth enabled device.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-9165 – A flaw was found in Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes (RHACS). Central does not limit the depth of GraphQL queries served on the aut...
• CVE-2026-56140 – Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Camel AWS SNS component. The camel-aws2-sns component filters Camel headers through a component...
• CVE-2026-56139 – Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information vulnerability in Apache Camel Undertow Component. The camel-undertow HTTP server cons...
• CVE-2026-55994 – Improper Input Validation, Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor, Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Apache C...
• CVE-2026-55993 – Improper Input Validation, Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor, Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Apache C...