CVE-2026-1188
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Eclipse OMR port library component since release 0.2.0, an API function to return the textual names of all supported processor features was not accounting for the separator inserted between processor features. If the output buffer supplied to this function was incorrectly sized, failing to account for the separator when determining when a write to the buffer was safe could lead to a buffer overflow. This issue is fixed in Eclipse OMR version 0.8.0.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the Eclipse OMR port library's API function that returns textual names of processor features. The function fails to account for separator characters between processor feature names when calculating safe buffer write boundaries, causing potential buffer overflow when the output buffer is undersized. This affects all versions from 0.2.0 through versions prior to 0.8.0.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 0.2, < 0.8.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Eclipse OMR versionLocate the OMR library or source code and check the version identifier (typically in a version file, build metadata, or library filename). Common locations: omr_version.h, VERSION file, or the shared library name containing the version string.Affected if The version is 0.2 or higher but lower than 0.8.0 (for example, 0.4.0, 0.5.1, 0.7.0 are affected)
-
Verify the port library is in useInspect the application or service binaries for linkage to the Eclipse OMR port library (libomrport or similar). Use commands like 'ldd' on Linux or check dependencies in the build configuration.Affected if The application links against Eclipse OMR port library version 0.2 to 0.7.x
-
Identify calls to processor feature APISearch source code or binary for invocations of functions that return processor feature names. Look for functions related to 'getProcessorFeature', 'omrport_get_processor_feature', or similar APIs in the port library that return feature name strings.Affected if Code calls any API function that returns textual names of processor features from the port library
-
Inspect buffer allocation for feature name APIExamine the code that receives the processor feature name strings. Check the buffer sizes allocated before calling the API function. Look for hardcoded small buffer sizes or stack-allocated buffers.Affected if The buffers passed to the processor feature name API are fixed-size and do not account for separators between multiple feature names
-
Check for overflow indicatorsIf the affected API is in use, monitor for crashes, memory corruption, or buffer overflow warnings in logs. Search core dumps or error reports for memory corruption near processor feature string handling.Affected if Memory corruption occurs in code paths that process processor feature name strings from the OMR port library
You are affected if your Eclipse OMR version is 0.2 through 0.7.x AND your code calls the processor feature name API with undersized buffers.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped0.8.0
Upgrade Eclipse OMR library to version 0.8.0 or later where the buffer size calculation properly accounts for separator characters between processor feature names.
Eclipse OMR version 0.8.0
- Identify the current Eclipse OMR version in use by checking project dependencies or build configuration
- Upgrade Eclipse OMR to version 0.8.0 or later by updating the dependency or pulling the latest release
- Rebuild and recompile any projects that depend on the Eclipse OMR library with the updated version
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking that the new version is loaded at runtime
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-1188 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-1188 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data