CVE-2026-50254
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 · uneditedAn unauthenticated remote attacker can repeatedly send a single crafted connection request to leak memory. Against storescp in its default single-process mode, memory grows quickly and the service is eventually killed, after which it stops accepting connections until an operator restarts it.
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 · moderate confidenceAn unauthenticated remote attacker can repeatedly send a single crafted connection request to storescp (a DICOM storage server) in its default single-process mode, causing a memory leak that grows quickly until the service is killed. The service then stops accepting connections until an operator manually restarts it.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Verify storescp is runningRun 'ps aux | grep storescp' or check your system's service/process monitor to confirm the storescp DICOM storage service is activeAffected if storescp process is running and exposed to network connections
-
Check storescp process modeExamine the storescp configuration or command-line arguments for multi-process mode flags (e.g., '-b' for blocking, or process manager settings). Check startup scripts or config files for mode settingsAffected if storescp is running in default single-process mode (no multi-process or blocking mode flags configured)
-
Determine installed versionRun 'storescp -v' or check the DCMTK/dcm4che package version installed on the system using your package manager (dpkg, rpm, yum)Affected if version matches any affected releases (note: no specific version range provided; compare to vendor release notes)
-
Assess network exposureReview firewall rules, networkACLs, and storescp bind address configuration to determine if the service accepts connections from unauthenticated network sourcesAffected if service is bound to a reachable network address and allows unauthenticated connections without authentication requirements
-
Monitor for memory growthUse system monitoring (top, htop, or memory profiling tools) to observe storescp process memory usage over time, especially after receiving connection attemptsAffected if memory usage shows continuous growth without stabilization, indicating a potential leak
You are affected if storescp is running in single-process mode, accepts unauthenticated network connections, and exhibits unexplained memory growth or has stopped accepting connections.
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.
From vendor dataConfigure storescp to run in multi-process mode instead of single-process mode to isolate connection handling; implement network segmentation to limit exposure to unauthenticated attackers; monitor for memory anomalies and apply vendor patches when available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-50254 — 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-2026-50254 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