Home/CVE/Dragonfly is an in-memory data store built for modern application workloads. Prior to 1.39.0, a crafted RESTORE payload
CVE
CVE-2026-54341
Dragonfly is an in-memory data store built for modern application workloads. Prior to 1.39.0, a crafted RESTORE payload
Dragonfly is an in-memory data store built for modern application workloads. Prior to 1.39.0, a crafted RESTORE payload triggers an out-of-bounds read in DragonflyDB's listpack collection loaders, crashing the entire server process (SIGSEGV). Because DragonflyDB requires no authentication by default and RESTORE is a normal keyspace command, an unauthenticated remote attacker can crash the server with a single ~24-byte command, a remote, repeatable denial of service.
This vulnerability is fixed in 1.39.0.
HIGH · CVSS 7.5
Schedule remediation
- SSVC automatable: yes - attacks can be scripted at scale
- CVSS base score ≥ 7.0
No Sigma yet — build one →
YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
▸
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-54341, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked.
EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal.
CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score.
Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits.
PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).
⚠
Exploitation evidence
1 of 7 sources
Corroboration score 8/100 ·
emerging.
This counts how many independent sources have exploitation evidence, and separates two different things:
confirmed in-the-wild use (CISA KEV, Microsoft MSRC, ransomware activity) from
exploit / PoC availability (Metasploit, ExploitDB, Nuclei, public PoCs). A template or PoC existing means
an attack is possible and easy - it is not, on its own, proof the CVE is being exploited in the wild.
Exploit / PoC available
public PoC
EPSS exploitation probability
n/a
No EPSS score in our data for this CVE. EPSS is published daily for scored CVEs - a very new, reserved, or rejected CVE may not have one yet.
CVSS metric silhouette
shape grows toward worst-case
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
poc
Automatable
yes
Tech impact
partial
CVSS vector breakdown
Exploitability - how they get in
Attack Vector
Network
Adjacent
Local
Physical
Attack Complexity
Low
High
Privileges Required
None
Low
High
User Interaction
None
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Changed
Impact - what breaks
Confidentiality
None
Low
High
Integrity
None
Low
High
Availability
None
Low
High
VECTOR
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H◆
ATT&CK techniques
1Techniques this CVE enables. Pills with a solid outline are high confidence - named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei, or human-curated by CTID; the rest are inferred from the weakness type using MITRE's CVE Mapping Methodology and the CWE → CAPEC chain. Broad, generic-weakness guesses are filtered out. A small N× marks a technique that N independent sources agree on.
▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques▤
CAPEC attack patterns
1Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.
⬡
Weakness Classification
CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read
▤
Related CVEs
4CVEs linked to this one by a shared weakness (CWE) or affected product - joins on data already in the engine, with the reason shown per row.
CVE-1999-0022
Local user gains root privileges via buffer overflow in rdist, via expstr() func...
same CWE-125
HIGH
CVE-1999-0029
root privileges via buffer overflow in ordist command on SGI IRIX systems.
1
same CWE-125
HIGH
CVE-1999-0006
Buffer overflow in POP servers based on BSD/Qualcomm's qpopper allows remote att...
2
same CWE-125
CRITICAL
CVE-2004-0183
TCPDUMP 3.8.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (...
same CWE-125
🔗
References & Sources
2Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.