CVE-2026-18341
largeInteger underflow memory corruption in IBM i 7.3–7.6
IBM i versions 7.6, 7.5, 7.4, and 7.3 contain a flaw that could allow a remote, authenticated attacker to corrupt memory due to an integer underflow (CWE-191), leading to out-of-bounds memory writes (CWE-122). The issue is triggered by sending crafted input over the network to the affected system while holding valid, low-privilege credentials, since the attack requires no user interaction and only low privileges. Successful exploitation carries high potential impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability, which could mean system compromise or service disruption on the IBM i partition. Any organization running IBM i 7.3 through 7.6 is potentially affected, though only systems whose affected interface is reachable over the network by authenticated users face practical risk. There is currently no known public proof-of-concept, no entry in CISA's KEV catalog, and no confirmed exploitation in the wild, with EPSS estimating only a 0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.
What to do: Review IBM's security bulletin for CVE-2026-18341 and apply the IBM i PTFs or fix levels it specifies for 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6, since specific fixed versions are not stated in the available data. In the interim, limit remote access to IBM i network services to trusted users and networks and confirm that unauthenticated or broadly shared accounts cannot reach the affected system. Because the affected component is unspecified, inventory all IBM i partitions running 7.3–7.6 and track the advisory for updated remediation details.
| IBM i | 7.6, 7.5, 7.4, 7.3 |
Order-of-magnitude estimate by the model from install counts, market share and public scan data it knows; verify before quoting.
IBM i 7.6, 7.5, 7.4, and 7.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to corrupt memory due to an integer underflow.
- Vendors
- ibm
- Products
- i
- Weakness
- CWE-122, CWE-191
- Vector
- CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the news0 stories
No ingested article mentions this CVE yet.