What CVEs are caused by CWE-191?

277 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-191, including CVE-2014-0497, CVE-2026-51540, CVE-2026-37534. 1 are listed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Is CWE-191 actively exploited?

Yes. 1 CWE-191 vulnerabilities are in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws, out of 277 recorded CVEs.

Base weakness

Draft

CWE-191: Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound)

Also known as: Integer underflow

The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result.

Last updated May 1, 2026

277

Recorded CVEs

With this primary weakness

KEVs

In the CISA KEV catalog

Not rated

Likelihood of exploit

Per MITRE

Base

Abstraction

MITRE classification

Overview

This can happen in signed and unsigned cases.

Real-world CVEs

277 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-191 (Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound)), including 1 in CISA's KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) catalog. KEVs are shown first. 79 new CWE-191 CVEs have been recorded so far in 2026 (61 in 2025).

Showing 12 of 277 recorded CWE-191 CVEs. Track new ones as they are published and get AI-written analysis and fixes.

Monitor CWE-191 vulnerabilities

Common consequences

What can happen when CWE-191 is exploited.

DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Instability

Affects: Availability

This weakness will generally lead to undefined behavior and therefore crashes. In the case of overflows involving loop index variables, the likelihood of infinite loops is also high.

Modify Memory

Affects: Integrity

If the value in question is important to data (as opposed to flow), simple data corruption has occurred. Also, if the wrap around results in other conditions such as buffer overflows, further memory corruption may occur.

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Bypass Protection Mechanism

Affects: Confidentiality, Availability, Access Control

This weakness can sometimes trigger buffer overflows which can be used to execute arbitrary code. This is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy.

How it happens

When it is introduced

Typically introduced during these phases of the software lifecycle.

Implementation

Applies to

Languages

C++

Java

How to detect it

Automated Static Analysis

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Effectiveness: High

Code examples

Illustrative examples from MITRE showing how the weakness appears in code.

The following example subtracts from a 32 bit signed integer.

Vulnerable example

#include <stdio.h>

The example has an integer underflow. The value of i is already at the lowest negative value possible, so after subtracting 1, the new value of i is 2147483647.

This code performs a stack allocation based on a length calculation.

Vulnerable example

int a = 5, b = 6;

Illustrative examples

Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.

CVE-2004-0816 — Integer underflow in firewall via malformed packet.
CVE-2004-1002 — Integer underflow by packet with invalid length.
CVE-2005-0199 — Long input causes incorrect length calculation.
CVE-2005-1891 — Malformed icon causes integer underflow in loop counter variable.

Terminology & mappings

Alternate terms

Integer underflow

Mapped taxonomies

PLOVER: Integer underflow (wrap or wraparound)
Software Fault Patterns: Glitch in computation (SFP1)
CERT C Secure Coding: Ensure that unsigned integer operations do not wrap (INT30-C) — Imprecise fit
CERT C Secure Coding: Ensure that operations on signed integers do not result in overflow (INT32-C) — Imprecise fit

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about CWE-191.

What is CWE-191?: The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result.
What CVEs are caused by CWE-191?: 277 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-191, including CVE-2014-0497, CVE-2026-51540, CVE-2026-37534. 1 are listed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.
How is CWE-191 detected?: Automated Static Analysis: Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
What are the consequences of CWE-191?: Exploiting CWE-191 can lead to: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Instability, Modify Memory, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands.
Is CWE-191 actively exploited?: Yes. 1 CWE-191 vulnerabilities are in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws, out of 277 recorded CVEs.

References

Weakness data is sourced from the MITRE CWE catalog (v4.20). CVE associations are aggregated and kept current by RadicalNotion.AI.

Stay ahead of CWE-191

Get alerted the moment a new CWE-191 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.

Start free See pricing