CVE-2026-43994 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-43994 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-43994: Coturn is a free open source implementation of TURN and STUN Server. Versions prior to 4.10.0 contain a stack buffer overflow in decode_oauth_token_gcm(). A uint16_t nonce_len field read from an attacker-supplied OAuth access token (0-65535) is passed directly to memcpy() as the copy length into a 256-byte stack buffer (oauth_encrypted_block.nonce[256]) without bounds checking. The overflow occurs before AES-GCM authentication is verified, the attacker does not need to know the OAuth key or produce a valid AES-GCM token. Up to 735 bytes of attacker-controlled data are written past the buffer, may corrupt adjacent stack data, including control-flow data depending on compiler, ABI, and mitigations. Requires --oauth mode (non-default). This may provide a plausible RCE primitive depending on exploit mitigations; because coturn is widely deployed for WebRTC TURN/STUN and --oauth is commonly recommended, impact can be broad. This issue has been fixed in version 4.10.0.

CVE-2026-43994 References

External References

• https://github.com/coturn/coturn/releases/tag/4.10.0
• https://github.com/coturn/coturn/security/advisories/GHSA-74pg-rfh2-5qw5

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables CAPEC-10 This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
• Overflow Buffers CAPEC-100 Buffer Overflow attacks target improper or missing bounds checking on buffer operations, typically triggered by input injected by an adversary. As a consequence, an adversary is able to write past the boundaries of allocated buffer regions in memory, causing a program crash or potentially redirection of execution as per the adversaries' choice.
• Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow CAPEC-14 This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads.
• Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow CAPEC-24 In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
• MIME Conversion CAPEC-42 An attacker exploits a weakness in the MIME conversion routine to cause a buffer overflow and gain control over the mail server machine. The MIME system is designed to allow various different information formats to be interpreted and sent via e-mail. Attack points exist when data are converted to MIME compatible format and back.
• Overflow Binary Resource File CAPEC-44 An attack of this type exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in the handling of binary resources. Binary resources may include music files like MP3, image files like JPEG files, and any other binary file. These attacks may pass unnoticed to the client machine through normal usage of files, such as a browser loading a seemingly innocent JPEG file. This can allow the adversary access to the execution stack and execute arbitrary code in the target process.
• Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links CAPEC-45 This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
• Overflow Variables and Tags CAPEC-46 This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The adversary crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
• Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion CAPEC-47 In this attack, the target software is given input that the adversary knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
• String Format Overflow in syslog() CAPEC-67 This attack targets applications and software that uses the syslog() function insecurely. If an application does not explicitely use a format string parameter in a call to syslog(), user input can be placed in the format string parameter leading to a format string injection attack. Adversaries can then inject malicious format string commands into the function call leading to a buffer overflow. There are many reported software vulnerabilities with the root cause being a misuse of the syslog() function.
• Buffer Overflow in an API Call CAPEC-8 This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An adversary who has knowledge of known vulnerable libraries or shared code can easily target software that makes use of these libraries. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
• Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities CAPEC-9 This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An adversary can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
• Forced Integer Overflow CAPEC-92 This attack forces an integer variable to go out of range. The integer variable is often used as an offset such as size of memory allocation or similarly. The attacker would typically control the value of such variable and try to get it out of range. For instance the integer in question is incremented past the maximum possible value, it may wrap to become a very small, or negative number, therefore providing a very incorrect value which can lead to unexpected behavior. At worst the attacker can execute arbitrary code.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-8668 – A static credential embedded in Chef 360 prior to v1.7.0 permitted unauthenticated access to internal message queues.  Queue messages contained ten...
• CVE-2026-8100 – Impact A security issue has been identified in Chef 360 that could allow unauthorized access to protected API endpoints under specific conditions....
• CVE-2026-54130 – Missing authentication for critical function in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
• CVE-2026-54017 – Open WebUI is a self-hosted artificial intelligence platform designed to operate entirely offline. Prior to 0.9.6, the terminal-server reverse prox...
• CVE-2026-49205 – phpMyFAQ is an open source FAQ web application. Versions prior to 4.1.4 have Missing Authorization in the API CategoryController. CVE-2026-24421 a...