CVE-2026-56015
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 · uneditedNet::IP::LPM versions through 1.10 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via an unbounded prefix length. add() passes the prefix string to the trie builder addPrefixToTrie() without checking it against the address width. addPrefixToTrie() then walks the prefix buffer by prefix_length bits, reading prefix[byte] for byte up to prefix_len/8, where prefix is the 4-byte (IPv4) or 16-byte (IPv6) packed address. A prefix length greater than 32 for IPv4 or 128 for IPv6, for example add("1.2.3.4/255", $v) or add("2001:db8::/255", $v), reads past the end of the packed address. The out-of-bounds read happens during trie construction and is bounded: the prefix length is stored as an unsigned char, so the bit walk reads at most 32 bytes from the start of the packed address, a short distance past the end of the 4-byte or 16-byte buffer. It is detectable under AddressSanitizer, valgrind, or a hardened allocator, where it can abort the process. Lookups and dump() format only the valid address width, so the out-of-bounds bytes are not exposed through the module's API.
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 confidenceNet::IP::LPM Perl module versions 1.10 and earlier lack validation of prefix length in the add() function. When a prefix length exceeding the address width (32 for IPv4, 128 for IPv6) is provided, addPrefixToTrie() reads past the end of the packed address buffer by up to 32 bytes. This heap out-of-bounds read is detectable by memory sanitizers but not exposed through the module's public API.
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
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Check installed Net::IP::LPM versionRun 'perl -MNet::IP::LPM -e "print $Net::IP::LPM::VERSION"' or locate the module file (typically in site/lib/Net/IP/LPM.pm) and read the $VERSION variableAffected if Version is 1.10 or earlier (the vulnerable version range)
-
Confirm the add() function lacks prefix length validationExamine the Net::IP::LPM source code, specifically the add() subroutine, for any validation that rejects prefix lengths greater than 32 for IPv4 or 128 for IPv6 before calling addPrefixToTrie()Affected if No such validation exists in the add() function, allowing oversized prefix lengths to reach addPrefixToTrie()
-
Detect heap out-of-bounds read via memory sanitizerRun Perl code that exercises add() with an oversized prefix length (e.g., 33+ for IPv4 or 129+ for IPv6) under a memory sanitizer-enabled build of the module (ASan or MSan)Affected if The sanitizer reports a heap out-of-bounds read of up to 32 bytes beyond the packed address buffer
A user is affected if they have Net::IP::LPM version 1.10 or earlier and can observe the out-of-bounds read through memory sanitizers, since the vulnerability is not exposed through the module's public API without such instrumentation.
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 · scopedAdd input validation in add() to reject prefix lengths exceeding 32 for IPv4 or 128 for IPv6 addresses before passing to addPrefixToTrie(). Alternatively, upgrade to a patched version once available.
- Download the vendor patch from https://security.metacpan.org/patches/N/Net-IP-LPM/1.10/CVE-2026-56015-r2.patch
- Review the patch to understand the fix (validation of prefix length against address width)
- Apply the patch to the Net-IP-LPM-1.10 source code using 'patch -p1 < CVE-2026-56015-r2.patch'
- Reinstall the patched module using 'perl Makefile.PL && make && make test && make install'
- Verify the module loads correctly and test that prefix lengths >32 (IPv4) or >128 (IPv6) are now rejected
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-56015 — 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-2026-56015 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