OSEC-2026-26
Vulnerability from osv_ocaml – Published: 2026-10-23 21:30 – Updated: 2026-10-23 21:30 – Source websiteANT-2026-DTBY2HWS
Custom events maintains a cache of user events, it is possible to have a corrupt stream that has a valid message with one message type (which can be custom/unit/span/int) and then has the same event with a different message type.
This would never be encountered in a real program but can lead to a crash.
Fix
Validate event type against expected type, report a corrupt stream on mismatch.
Am I affected?
If the runtime events producer and consumer run in separate processes, and the producer can be tricked into producing malformed data.
Timeline
- 2026-08-24: vulnerability was found
- 2026-08-27: forwarded report to security@ocaml.org
- 2027-10-20: fix merged to trunk
{
"affected": [
{
"ecosystem_specific": {
"affected_bindings": [
"Runtime_events.read_poll"
],
"opam_constraint": "ocaml {\u003c \"5.5.2\"}"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "opam",
"name": "ocaml",
"purl": "pkg:opam/ocaml"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
},
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "ac2fae847a9c2c35ae3bba90a19adbe5d0cc6f59"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml",
"type": "GIT"
},
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "de10a6b03a471821cb0b868223e5331b919f48c0"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml",
"type": "GIT"
}
],
"versions": [
"3.07",
"3.07+1",
"3.07+2",
"3.08.0",
"3.08.1",
"3.08.2",
"3.08.3",
"3.08.4",
"3.09.0",
"3.09.1",
"3.09.2",
"3.09.3",
"3.10.0",
"3.10.1",
"3.10.2",
"3.11.0",
"3.11.1",
"3.11.2",
"3.12.0",
"3.12.1",
"4.00.0",
"4.00.1",
"4.01.0",
"4.02.0",
"4.02.1",
"4.02.2",
"4.02.3",
"4.02.4",
"4.03.0",
"4.03.1",
"4.04.0",
"4.04.1",
"4.04.2",
"4.04.3",
"4.05.0",
"4.05.1",
"4.06.0",
"4.06.1",
"4.06.2",
"4.07.0",
"4.07.1",
"4.07.2",
"4.08.0",
"4.08.1",
"4.08.2",
"4.09.0",
"4.09.1",
"4.09.2",
"4.10.0",
"4.10.1",
"4.10.2",
"4.10.3",
"4.11.0",
"4.11.1",
"4.11.2",
"4.11.3",
"4.12.0",
"4.12.1",
"4.12.2",
"4.13.0",
"4.13.1",
"4.13.2",
"4.14.0",
"4.14.1",
"4.14.2",
"4.14.3",
"4.14.4",
"4.14.5",
"5.0.0",
"5.0.1",
"5.1.0",
"5.1.1",
"5.1.2",
"5.2.0",
"5.2.1",
"5.2.2",
"5.3.0",
"5.3.1",
"5.4.0",
"5.4.1",
"5.4.2",
"5.5.0",
"5.5.1"
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"name": "Anthropic",
"type": "REPORTER"
},
{
"name": "Hannes Mehnert",
"type": "COORDINATOR"
},
{
"name": "Edwin T\u00f6r\u00f6k",
"type": "COORDINATOR"
},
{
"name": "Edwin T\u00f6r\u00f6k",
"type": "REMEDIATION_REVIEWER"
},
{
"name": "Sadiq Jaffer",
"type": "REMEDIATION_DEVELOPER"
}
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-122"
],
"human_link": "https://github.com/ocaml/security-advisories/tree/main/advisories/2026/OSEC-2026-26.md",
"osv": "https://github.com/ocaml/security-advisories/tree/generated-osv/2026/OSEC-2026-26.json"
},
"details": "ANT-2026-DTBY2HWS \n\nCustom events maintains a cache of user events, it is possible to have a corrupt stream that has a valid message with one message type (which can be custom/unit/span/int) and then has the same event with a different message type.\n\nThis would never be encountered in a real program but can lead to a crash.\n\n## Fix\n\nValidate event type against expected type, report a corrupt stream on mismatch.\n\n## Am I affected?\n\nIf the runtime events producer and consumer run in separate processes, and the producer can be tricked into producing malformed data.\n\n## Timeline\n\n- 2026-08-24: vulnerability was found\n- 2026-08-27: forwarded report to security@ocaml.org\n- 2027-10-20: fix merged to trunk",
"id": "OSEC-2026-26",
"modified": "2026-10-23T21:30:00Z",
"published": "2026-10-23T21:30:00Z",
"references": [],
"schema_version": "1.7.4",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "runtime_events user event name-based type confusion"
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.