CVE-2026-42503High· 8.8▾ Twilightgopls by default communicates via pipe. However, -port and -listen flags are supported as means of debugging. If -listen is given a value without an explicit host (e.g. :8080), or -port is used, gopls will listen on 0.0.0.0. As a result…
▾ Twilight zone — High severity, or a signal on a lesser flaw
impact 48.4 · likelihood 0 · exploitation 0
Need a working PoC? Pro members can cast a request and our team develops one — it lands right here.
Exploit-prediction probability, daily snapshots since Sep 18.
Disclosure to exploitation, from the record and what we observed since indexing it.
Disclosed via NVD
Last analysed / modified upstream
0.2%
gopls by default communicates via pipe. However, -port and -listen flags are supported as means of debugging. If -listen is given a value without an explicit host (e.g. :8080), or -port is used, gopls will listen on 0.0.0.0. As a result, users might inadvertently cause gopls to bind 0.0.0.0. This can allow a malicious party on the same network to execute code arbitrarily via gopls.
gopls < 0.22.0Upgrade past the affected range:
gopls 0.22.0Connected by shared product, vendor, weakness, or advisory.
CVE-2024-45339High· 7.1Insecure Temporary File usage in github.com/golang/glog
CVE-2026-32288Medium· 5.5tar.Reader can allocate an unbounded amount of memory when reading a maliciously-crafted archive containing a large number of sparse regions encoded in the "old GNU sparse map" format.
CVE-2026-27144High· 7.1The compiler is meant to unwrap pointers which are the operands of a memory move; a no-op interface conversion prevented the compiler from making the correct determination about non-overlapping moves, potentially leading to memory corrup…
CVE-2026-27143Critical· 9.8Arithmetic over induction variables in loops were not correctly checked for underflow or overflow
CVE-2026-27140High· 8.8SWIG file names containing 'cgo' and well-crafted payloads could lead to code smuggling and arbitrary code execution at build time due to trust layer bypass.
CVE-2026-42505Medium· 5.3Handshakes which used Encrypted Client Hello could be de-anonymized by a passive network observer due to a disclosure of pre-shared key identities in the unencrypted client hello.