Quick answer
Direct answer
Risk scores
| CVSS metric | What it means |
|---|---|
| Attack vector (AV:N) | Network: reachable remotely |
| Attack complexity (AC:L) | Low complexity |
| Privileges required (PR:N) | No privileges required |
| User interaction (UI:N) | No user interaction |
| Scope (S:U) | Scope unchanged |
| Confidentiality (C:N) | No confidentiality impact |
| Integrity (I:N) | No integrity impact |
| Availability (A:H) | High availability impact |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
About Golang Go
CVE-2026-39820 affects Golang Go, a product from Golang. Before acting, confirm where Golang Go runs in your estate, who owns it and whether it is reachable from the internet, because exposure decides real risk more than the score alone.
What the flaw is
In plain terms: Well-crafted inputs reaching ParseAddress, ParseAddressList, and ParseDate were able to trigger excessive CPU exhaustion and memory allocations.
The weakness class is Allocation Without Limits. Resources are allocated without a cap.
Based on its CVSS vector, the flaw can be reached over the network, needs no login, and needs no user interaction. Apply the vendor fix and confirm exposure on internet facing and business critical assets first.
Affected versions and timeline
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Product | Golang Go |
| Affected versions | Go before 1.25.10; Go from 1.26.0 before 1.26.3 |
| Published | May 7, 2026 |
| Last modified | Sep 18, 2026 |
| Added to CISA KEV | Not listed |
| Assigning CNA | security@golang.org |
How to detect it
- Inventory every instance of Golang Go and record the running version against the affected range above.
- Check external attack surface scans for internet facing instances of the component.
- Review logs on affected systems for unusual requests, errors or new processes around the vulnerable function.
- Confirm with an authenticated vulnerability scan once your scanner has a check for this CVE.
How to fix it
- Apply the fixed version of Golang Go named in the vendor advisory.
- If patching must wait, restrict network access to the affected service and put it behind authentication or a web application firewall rule.
- Rescan after the change to prove the exposure is gone, then close the ticket.
CTEM action plan
| CTEM stage | What to do for this CVE |
|---|---|
| Scope | Add every business service that depends on Golang Go to the current CTEM cycle. |
| Discover | Find all instances, including shadow and cloud deployments, and record versions and exposure. |
| Prioritize | Rank using EPSS and CVSS together with asset exposure and business impact. |
| Validate | Confirm the flaw is reachable and exploitable in your environment and that compensating controls work. |
| Mobilize | Assign the fix to the asset owner with a due date matched to the priority, then verify closure. |
CWE References
- CWE-770: Allocation Without Limits More CVEs with this weakness
- CWE-606 More CVEs with this weakness
Technical References
- ▸NVD entry
- ▸CVE.org record
- ▸Advisory on go.dev
- ▸Advisory on go.dev
- ▸Advisory on groups.google.com
- ▸Advisory on pkg.go.dev
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
- ▸Red Hat security advisory
Frequently asked questions
Related CVEs
The Dial and LookupPort functions panic on Windows when provided with an input containing a NUL (0).
When processing HTTP/2 SETTINGS frames, transport will enter an infinite loop of writing CONTINUATION frames if it receives a SETTINGS_MAX_FRAME_SIZE with a value of 0.
When using LookupCNAME with the cgo DNS resolver, a very long CNAME response can trigger a double-free of C memory and a crash.
When verifying a certificate chain containing excluded DNS constraints, these constraints are not correctly applied to wildcard DNS SANs which use a different case than the constraint. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root CA in the VerifyOptions.Roots CertPool, or in the system certificate pool.
If one side of the TLS connection sends multiple key update messages post-handshake in a single record, the connection can deadlock, causing uncontrolled consumption of resources. This can lead to a denial of service. This only affects TLS 1.3.
Validating certificate chains which use policies is unexpectedly inefficient when certificates in the chain contain a very large number of policy mappings, possibly causing denial of service. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root CA in the VerifyOptions.Roots CertPool, or in the system certificate pool.
Earn your free CTEM certification.
Learn to scope, prioritize, validate and mobilize fixes for CVEs like CVE-2026-39820 with a free CTEM certification.
Beginner / Practitioner / Program Leader
Explore certifications