CVE-2026-9563

Home/CVE/In Eclipse Parsson published Maven Central artifacts before version 1.1.8, the JSON parser did not enforce a default max

CVE

↯ PDF report

In Eclipse Parsson published Maven Central artifacts before version 1.1.8, the JSON parser did not enforce a default max

In Eclipse Parsson published Maven Central artifacts before version 1.1.8, the JSON parser did not enforce a default maximum on the number of characters consumed while parsing a single JSON document. Applications that parse attacker-controlled JSON can be forced to consume excessive CPU and memory by processing very large documents, including large arrays, objects, strings, numbers, whitespace, or nested structures, resulting in a denial of service. Eclipse Parsson 1.1.8 introduces a configurable maximum parsing limit with a default limit of 15 million parser-consumed characters.

HIGH · CVSS 7.5 EPSS 0.00366

EPSS exploitation odds0.37% · top 71%

Schedule remediation

CVSS base score ≥ 7.0

No Sigma yet — build one → YARA rules0

Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots

NVD CVE.org CISA Exploit-DB GitHub PoC VulnCheck KEV GreyNoise

▸ How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch

This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-9563, 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).

▣

Severity & exploitation scoring

View on NVD →

CVSS base score

7.5

HIGHCVSS v3.1 · [email protected]

EPSS exploitation probability

0.37%

Top 71%odds of exploitation in the next 30 days

CVSS metric silhouette

shape grows toward worst-case

SSVC triage

No SSVC vulnrichment for this CVE. CISA's Vulnrichment program scores newer CVEs (~2024 onwards) plus selected older critical ones. Use the EPSS probability + KEV status to triage instead.

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

VECTORCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack path

Full kill chain

→

◆

ATT&CK techniques

Techniques 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.

T1498.001 · Direct Network Flood T1498.002 · Reflection Amplification T1499 · Endpoint Denial of Service^2× T1499.001 · OS Exhaustion Flood T1499.002 · Service Exhaustion Flood T1499.003 · Application Exhaustion Flood

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques