CWE-20
DiscouragedImproper Input Validation
Abstraction: Class · Status: Stable
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
17651 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
CVE-2026-95674 (GCVE-0-2026-95674)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-22 13:44 – Updated: 2026-09-22 15:31- CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/7dfcc4d32 | patch |
qwen3.8:27b
advisory
bcp-05-x-01bcp-05-x-02
Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-09-22 13:21 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/7dfcc4d32.patch
799bc5310fbd… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
7dfcc4d32970
|
fix: [security] Harden misp modules module choice | 799bc5310fbd… |
Fix summary
The fix adds a moduleFound flag that is set only when the requested module name matches an entry in the enabled modules list. After the lookup loop completes, if the flag remains false, the method throws a MethodNotAllowedException with the message 'Module not found or not available,' effectively rejecting any query that references a module not present in the enabled set.
Patch summary
In app/Controller/EventsController.php, the queryEnrichment method is modified: a boolean variable $moduleFound is initialized to false before the foreach loop over $enabledModules['modules']. Inside the loop, when a module name matches, $moduleFound is set to true. After the loop, a new conditional block checks if $moduleFound is still false and throws a MethodNotAllowedException, preventing further processing with an unavailable module.
CVSS rationale
The vulnerability is exploitable over the network (AV:N) via the MISP web interface with low complexity (AC:L) and no attack target manipulation (AT:N). It requires a low-privilege authenticated user (PR:L) and no user interaction (UI:N). The primary impact is a low confidentiality impact (VC:L) because an authenticated user could trigger processing through a module not in the enabled set, potentially exposing data or processing results not intended to be available. No integrity or availability impact is evidenced (VI:N, VA:N). No secondary impacts are indicated (SC:N, SI:N, SA:N). The low impact reflects that the user already has authenticated access to the event and the exposure is limited to an additional module processing path.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-20 The module name parameter supplied to queryEnrichment was not validated against the set of enabled/available modules. The code accepted any module name and, when no match was found, proceeded with default parameters instead of rejecting the input. The fix adds an explicit validation check that rejects the request when the module is not in the enabled list.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-124 The closest plausible attack pattern is parameter tampering: an authenticated user supplies a module name in the queryEnrichment request that is not in the enabled modules list (e.g., a legacy or disabled module). The server previously accepted this parameter value and processed the request with defaults. The uncertainty is that the patch does not explicitly describe an active tampering scenario; it is a server-side validation gap. CAPEC-124 is selected as the best available match because the core mechanism is the manipulation of a request parameter to reference an unauthorized resource.
Assumptions to verify
- The affected version range is inferred from the tag_version_boundary (v2.5.47 with 138 commits after fix); the exact last affected version and first fixed version are not explicitly stated in the patch metadata.
- The security impact is assessed as low confidentiality impact based on the limited evidence; the actual data exposure depends on what legacy modules would process, which is not detailed in the patch.
- CAPEC-124 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available attack pattern; the actual scenario is a server-side input validation gap rather than an active tampering attack, so the mapping is approximate.
- The patch does not specify whether the legacy module query could lead to code execution, data exfiltration, or other higher-impact consequences; the CVSS impact metrics are conservatively set to reflect only the evidenced behavior.
- Authentication is assumed to be required (PR:L) based on MISP being an authenticated web application; the patch does not explicitly state authentication requirements.
Model comparison
Selected qwen3.8:27b
by deterministic-consensus-v1
The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required.
| Model | Score | Agreement | Confidence | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
qwen3.8:27b |
5 | 9 | medium | 5 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-95674",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-22T15:31:46.531365Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T15:31:52.088Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"modules": [
"app/Controller/EventsController.php"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Controller/EventsController.php"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.47",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eIn MISP, the queryEnrichment method in EventsController.php accepted a module name parameter and iterated over the list of enabled modules to find a match. If the specified module was not present in the enabled modules list, the code silently continued processing using default parameters (format set to \u0027simplified\u0027 and no module-specific configuration applied) rather than rejecting the request. This allowed an authenticated user to trigger enrichment or analysis processing through a module that was not explicitly enabled or available on the instance, bypassing the intended module availability controls. The lack of validation meant that module names outside the enabled set were not rejected, potentially exposing functionality or data processing paths that the administrator had not authorized for use.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "In MISP, the queryEnrichment method in EventsController.php accepted a module name parameter and iterated over the list of enabled modules to find a match. If the specified module was not present in the enabled modules list, the code silently continued processing using default parameters (format set to \u0027simplified\u0027 and no module-specific configuration applied) rather than rejecting the request. This allowed an authenticated user to trigger enrichment or analysis processing through a module that was not explicitly enabled or available on the instance, bypassing the intended module availability controls. The lack of validation meant that module names outside the enabled set were not rejected, potentially exposing functionality or data processing paths that the administrator had not authorized for use."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-124",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-124 Parameter Tampering"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T13:44:33.427Z",
"orgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"shortName": "CIRCL"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/7dfcc4d32"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe fix adds a moduleFound flag that is set only when the requested module name matches an entry in the enabled modules list. After the lookup loop completes, if the flag remains false, the method throws a MethodNotAllowedException with the message \u0027Module not found or not available,\u0027 effectively rejecting any query that references a module not present in the enabled set.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix adds a moduleFound flag that is set only when the requested module name matches an entry in the enabled modules list. After the lookup loop completes, if the flag remains false, the method throws a MethodNotAllowedException with the message \u0027Module not found or not available,\u0027 effectively rejecting any query that references a module not present in the enabled set."
}
],
"title": "MISP EventsController queryEnrichment allows querying unavailable or legacy modules without validation",
"x_gcve": [
{
"extensions": {
"bcp-05-x-01": {
"ai_annotations": [
{
"ai_level": "generated",
"description": "Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.",
"gna_source": 1,
"models": [
{
"gna_source": 1,
"identifier": "qwen3.8:27b",
"name": "qwen3.8:27b",
"source": "ollama"
}
],
"review_status": "full",
"scope": "record",
"tags": [
"ai-computer-assisted:llm-generated",
"ai-computer-assisted:classification"
]
}
]
},
"bcp-05-x-02": {
"x_patch2vuln": {
"assumptions": [
"The affected version range is inferred from the tag_version_boundary (v2.5.47 with 138 commits after fix); the exact last affected version and first fixed version are not explicitly stated in the patch metadata.",
"The security impact is assessed as low confidentiality impact based on the limited evidence; the actual data exposure depends on what legacy modules would process, which is not detailed in the patch.",
"CAPEC-124 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available attack pattern; the actual scenario is a server-side input validation gap rather than an active tampering attack, so the mapping is approximate.",
"The patch does not specify whether the legacy module query could lead to code execution, data exfiltration, or other higher-impact consequences; the CVSS impact metrics are conservatively set to reflect only the evidenced behavior.",
"Authentication is assumed to be required (PR:L) based on MISP being an authenticated web application; the patch does not explicitly state authentication requirements."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-124",
"rationale": "The closest plausible attack pattern is parameter tampering: an authenticated user supplies a module name in the queryEnrichment request that is not in the enabled modules list (e.g., a legacy or disabled module). The server previously accepted this parameter value and processed the request with defaults. The uncertainty is that the patch does not explicitly describe an active tampering scenario; it is a server-side validation gap. CAPEC-124 is selected as the best available match because the core mechanism is the manipulation of a request parameter to reference an unauthorized resource."
}
],
"commit": "7dfcc4d32970d553e8c39827dac04889e44f94e0",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "The vulnerability is exploitable over the network (AV:N) via the MISP web interface with low complexity (AC:L) and no attack target manipulation (AT:N). It requires a low-privilege authenticated user (PR:L) and no user interaction (UI:N). The primary impact is a low confidentiality impact (VC:L) because an authenticated user could trigger processing through a module not in the enabled set, potentially exposing data or processing results not intended to be available. No integrity or availability impact is evidenced (VI:N, VA:N). No secondary impacts are indicated (SC:N, SI:N, SA:N). The low impact reflects that the user already has authenticated access to the event and the exposure is limited to an additional module processing path.",
"fixSummary": "The fix adds a moduleFound flag that is set only when the requested module name matches an entry in the enabled modules list. After the lookup loop completes, if the flag remains false, the method throws a MethodNotAllowedException with the message \u0027Module not found or not available,\u0027 effectively rejecting any query that references a module not present in the enabled set.",
"generatedAt": "2026-09-22T13:21:49.468745Z",
"generator": "patch2vuln.py",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"modelComparison": {
"rankings": [
{
"agreementScore": 9,
"assumptionCount": 5,
"confidence": "medium",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"score": 5
}
],
"selectedModel": "qwen3.8:27b",
"selectionMethod": "deterministic-consensus-v1",
"selectionNotice": "The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required."
},
"patchSha256": "799bc5310fbd5bb6079992d5f7713a2d41ce3fbe45aa200523937e921f713cf4",
"patchSummary": "In app/Controller/EventsController.php, the queryEnrichment method is modified: a boolean variable $moduleFound is initialized to false before the foreach loop over $enabledModules[\u0027modules\u0027]. Inside the loop, when a module name matches, $moduleFound is set to true. After the loop, a new conditional block checks if $moduleFound is still false and throws a MethodNotAllowedException, preventing further processing with an unavailable module.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "7dfcc4d32970d553e8c39827dac04889e44f94e0",
"patchSha256": "799bc5310fbd5bb6079992d5f7713a2d41ce3fbe45aa200523937e921f713cf4",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/7dfcc4d32.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/7dfcc4d32.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Harden misp modules module choice"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/7dfcc4d32.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Harden misp modules module choice",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 138,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.47",
"version": "2.5.47",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"rationale": "The module name parameter supplied to queryEnrichment was not validated against the set of enabled/available modules. The code accepted any module name and, when no match was found, proceeded with default parameters instead of rejecting the input. The fix adds an explicit validation check that rejects the request when the module is not in the enabled list."
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20127"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"assignerShortName": "CIRCL",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-95674",
"datePublished": "2026-09-22T13:44:33.427Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T13:44:31.610Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T15:31:52.088Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-95659 (GCVE-0-2026-95659)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-22 12:40 – Updated: 2026-09-22 15:34| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/23b879073 | patch |
qwen3.8:27b
advisory
bcp-05-x-01bcp-05-x-02
Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-09-22 12:33 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/23b879073.patch
4476bdd487c3… - Confidence
- high
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
23b879073eef
|
fix: [security] Reflected XSS via the object type in the | 4476bdd487c3… |
Fix summary
The fix introduces two layers of defense. First, the viewForObject action now validates the object_type parameter against the AnalystData::valid_targets whitelist and rejects any value not in that list with a NotFoundException, preventing arbitrary strings from reaching the view layer. Second, the two output sinks in the Overmind thread.ctp template now apply the h() HTML-encoding function to the object type before interpolation into translated strings, ensuring that even if a valid type were to contain special characters, it would be rendered as inert text rather than executable markup.
Patch summary
In AnalystDataController.php, the patch adds an import of the AnalystData model and inserts a guard clause at the top of viewForObject that checks the $object_type parameter against AnalystData::valid_targets using a strict in_array comparison; if the value is not in the list, a NotFoundException is thrown. In thread.ctp, two occurrences of strtolower($objectType) passed directly into __() translation calls are wrapped with h() to HTML-encode the value before it is embedded in the rendered HTML output.
CVSS rationale
AV:N: The vulnerability is exploitable over the network via a crafted URL. AC:L: No race conditions or special environment conditions are required; the attacker simply crafts a URL with a malicious object_type value. AT:N: No manipulation of the attack target is needed. PR:L: The victim must be authenticated to MISP to reach the AnalystData view. UI:A: The victim must actively navigate to the attacker-supplied URL (e.g., click a link), which constitutes active user interaction. VC:N, VI:N, VA:N: The vulnerable MISP server itself is not directly compromised; the impact is on the victim's browser session. SC:L: The attacker can read data available in the victim's browser context (cookies, session tokens, page content) but impact is limited to the current page. SI:L: The attacker can modify the rendered page or submit forms on behalf of the victim within the session. SA:N: No broader security impact on other systems is expected from this reflected XSS.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-79 The object_type URL parameter is reflected into HTML output without encoding, allowing script injection. This is a textbook reflected XSS.
- CWE-116 The view template interpolated the object type into translated strings without applying h() HTML encoding, which is the direct encoding failure that permits the XSS.
- CWE-20 The controller accepted any arbitrary string as the object_type parameter without validating it against the known set of valid analyst-data target types, allowing attacker-controlled data to reach the output layer.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-127 The vulnerability is a reflected XSS: attacker-controlled input from the URL is reflected into the HTML response without encoding. CAPEC-127 is the most specific and directly applicable attack pattern. No uncertainty in this mapping.
- CAPEC-61 CAPEC-61 is the broader parent pattern for XSS attacks. It is included as a secondary mapping to cover the general class of the vulnerability. CAPEC-127 is the more precise match; CAPEC-61 is listed for completeness.
Assumptions to verify
- The affected version range is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata (v2.5.47 with 58 commits after the fix), suggesting the fix is included in v2.5.47. The exact first affected version is not specified in the patch.
- PR:L assumes the AnalystData viewForObject action requires authentication, which is consistent with MISP's typical access model but not explicitly confirmed in the patch.
- UI:A assumes the victim must actively navigate to a crafted URL (e.g., click a link). If the malicious URL could be loaded in an iframe or auto-redirected, UI:P might be more appropriate, but the evidence supports active navigation.
- SC:L and SI:L reflect the typical impact of reflected XSS limited to the current page context; a more severe impact (SC:H, SI:H) is possible if the XSS can exfiltrate full session credentials or perform privileged actions, but the patch evidence does not confirm the scope of available data.
- The CAPEC-61 mapping is a broader parent pattern included for completeness; CAPEC-127 is the primary and most precise match.
Model comparison
Selected qwen3.8:27b
by deterministic-consensus-v1
The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required.
| Model | Score | Agreement | Confidence | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
qwen3.8:27b |
6 | 9 | high | 5 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-95659",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-22T15:34:30.477077Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T15:34:41.995Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"AnalystDataController",
"Overmind theme AnalystData thread element"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Controller/AnalystDataController.php",
"app/View/Themed/Overmind/Elements/AnalystData/thread.ctp"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.47",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Fable 5.1"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eMISP contains a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the AnalystDataController::viewForObject action. The method accepted a parent object type parameter from the URL without validation and passed it to the Overmind-themed AnalystData thread view element, where it was interpolated into two translated strings and rendered into the HTML response without output encoding. An authenticated attacker who can induce a victim to navigate to a crafted URL can inject arbitrary JavaScript that executes in the victim\u0027s browser within the MISP application context. This may allow the attacker to read session data, manipulate the page, or perform actions on behalf of the victim.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe vulnerability requires the victim to be authenticated to MISP and to actively visit the attacker-supplied URL. The affected component is the AnalystData controller and the Overmind theme\u0027s AnalystData thread element.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVersion affected: \u0026lt;2.5.47\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "MISP contains a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the AnalystDataController::viewForObject action. The method accepted a parent object type parameter from the URL without validation and passed it to the Overmind-themed AnalystData thread view element, where it was interpolated into two translated strings and rendered into the HTML response without output encoding. An authenticated attacker who can induce a victim to navigate to a crafted URL can inject arbitrary JavaScript that executes in the victim\u0027s browser within the MISP application context. This may allow the attacker to read session data, manipulate the page, or perform actions on behalf of the victim.\u00a0\n\nThe vulnerability requires the victim to be authenticated to MISP and to actively visit the attacker-supplied URL. The affected component is the AnalystData controller and the Overmind theme\u0027s AnalystData thread element.\n\nVersion affected: \u003c2.5.47"
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-127",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-127 Cross Site Scripting (Reflected)"
}
]
},
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-61",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-61 Cross Site Scripting"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 4.8,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"subIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
"userInteraction": "ACTIVE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-79",
"description": "CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-116",
"description": "CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T12:41:31.639Z",
"orgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"shortName": "CIRCL"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/23b879073"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe fix introduces two layers of defense. First, the viewForObject action now validates the object_type parameter against the AnalystData::valid_targets whitelist and rejects any value not in that list with a NotFoundException, preventing arbitrary strings from reaching the view layer. Second, the two output sinks in the Overmind thread.ctp template now apply the h() HTML-encoding function to the object type before interpolation into translated strings, ensuring that even if a valid type were to contain special characters, it would be rendered as inert text rather than executable markup.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix introduces two layers of defense. First, the viewForObject action now validates the object_type parameter against the AnalystData::valid_targets whitelist and rejects any value not in that list with a NotFoundException, preventing arbitrary strings from reaching the view layer. Second, the two output sinks in the Overmind thread.ctp template now apply the h() HTML-encoding function to the object type before interpolation into translated strings, ensuring that even if a valid type were to contain special characters, it would be rendered as inert text rather than executable markup."
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "MISP Reflected XSS via Unvalidated Object Type in AnalystData Overmind Thread",
"x_gcve": [
{
"extensions": {
"bcp-05-x-01": {
"ai_annotations": [
{
"ai_level": "generated",
"description": "Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.",
"gna_source": 1,
"models": [
{
"gna_source": 1,
"identifier": "qwen3.8:27b",
"name": "qwen3.8:27b",
"source": "ollama"
}
],
"review_status": "full",
"scope": "record",
"tags": [
"ai-computer-assisted:llm-generated",
"ai-computer-assisted:classification"
]
}
]
},
"bcp-05-x-02": {
"x_patch2vuln": {
"assumptions": [
"The affected version range is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata (v2.5.47 with 58 commits after the fix), suggesting the fix is included in v2.5.47. The exact first affected version is not specified in the patch.",
"PR:L assumes the AnalystData viewForObject action requires authentication, which is consistent with MISP\u0027s typical access model but not explicitly confirmed in the patch.",
"UI:A assumes the victim must actively navigate to a crafted URL (e.g., click a link). If the malicious URL could be loaded in an iframe or auto-redirected, UI:P might be more appropriate, but the evidence supports active navigation.",
"SC:L and SI:L reflect the typical impact of reflected XSS limited to the current page context; a more severe impact (SC:H, SI:H) is possible if the XSS can exfiltrate full session credentials or perform privileged actions, but the patch evidence does not confirm the scope of available data.",
"The CAPEC-61 mapping is a broader parent pattern included for completeness; CAPEC-127 is the primary and most precise match."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-127",
"rationale": "The vulnerability is a reflected XSS: attacker-controlled input from the URL is reflected into the HTML response without encoding. CAPEC-127 is the most specific and directly applicable attack pattern. No uncertainty in this mapping."
},
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-61",
"rationale": "CAPEC-61 is the broader parent pattern for XSS attacks. It is included as a secondary mapping to cover the general class of the vulnerability. CAPEC-127 is the more precise match; CAPEC-61 is listed for completeness."
}
],
"commit": "23b879073eefce37e1065295d180c4bea7cef95f",
"confidence": "high",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Fable 5.1"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N: The vulnerability is exploitable over the network via a crafted URL. AC:L: No race conditions or special environment conditions are required; the attacker simply crafts a URL with a malicious object_type value. AT:N: No manipulation of the attack target is needed. PR:L: The victim must be authenticated to MISP to reach the AnalystData view. UI:A: The victim must actively navigate to the attacker-supplied URL (e.g., click a link), which constitutes active user interaction. VC:N, VI:N, VA:N: The vulnerable MISP server itself is not directly compromised; the impact is on the victim\u0027s browser session. SC:L: The attacker can read data available in the victim\u0027s browser context (cookies, session tokens, page content) but impact is limited to the current page. SI:L: The attacker can modify the rendered page or submit forms on behalf of the victim within the session. SA:N: No broader security impact on other systems is expected from this reflected XSS.",
"fixSummary": "The fix introduces two layers of defense. First, the viewForObject action now validates the object_type parameter against the AnalystData::valid_targets whitelist and rejects any value not in that list with a NotFoundException, preventing arbitrary strings from reaching the view layer. Second, the two output sinks in the Overmind thread.ctp template now apply the h() HTML-encoding function to the object type before interpolation into translated strings, ensuring that even if a valid type were to contain special characters, it would be rendered as inert text rather than executable markup.",
"generatedAt": "2026-09-22T12:33:44.255419Z",
"generator": "patch2vuln.py",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"modelComparison": {
"rankings": [
{
"agreementScore": 9,
"assumptionCount": 5,
"confidence": "high",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"score": 6
}
],
"selectedModel": "qwen3.8:27b",
"selectionMethod": "deterministic-consensus-v1",
"selectionNotice": "The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required."
},
"patchSha256": "4476bdd487c3b17c3cffff36a76763c107e8bf284095d61bd6860865ce8912e0",
"patchSummary": "In AnalystDataController.php, the patch adds an import of the AnalystData model and inserts a guard clause at the top of viewForObject that checks the $object_type parameter against AnalystData::valid_targets using a strict in_array comparison; if the value is not in the list, a NotFoundException is thrown. In thread.ctp, two occurrences of strtolower($objectType) passed directly into __() translation calls are wrapped with h() to HTML-encode the value before it is embedded in the rendered HTML output.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "23b879073eefce37e1065295d180c4bea7cef95f",
"patchSha256": "4476bdd487c3b17c3cffff36a76763c107e8bf284095d61bd6860865ce8912e0",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/23b879073.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/23b879073.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Reflected XSS via the object type in the"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/23b879073.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Reflected XSS via the object type in the",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 58,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.47",
"version": "2.5.47",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-79",
"rationale": "The object_type URL parameter is reflected into HTML output without encoding, allowing script injection. This is a textbook reflected XSS."
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-116",
"rationale": "The view template interpolated the object type into translated strings without applying h() HTML encoding, which is the direct encoding failure that permits the XSS."
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"rationale": "The controller accepted any arbitrary string as the object_type parameter without validating it against the known set of valid analyst-data target types, allowing attacker-controlled data to reach the output layer."
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20234"
}
],
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"assignerShortName": "CIRCL",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-95659",
"datePublished": "2026-09-22T12:40:38.097Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T12:40:33.071Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T15:34:41.995Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-94445 (GCVE-0-2026-94445)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-25 16:43 – Updated: 2026-09-25 17:08- CWE-20 - Improper input validation
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| golang.org/x/playground | golang.org/x/playground |
Affected:
0 , < 0.0.0-20260924211604-6d73cff14c17
(semver)
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 8.8,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-94445",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-25T17:08:10.870774Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-25T17:08:14.767Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://pkg.go.dev",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "golang.org/x/playground",
"product": "golang.org/x/playground",
"vendor": "golang.org/x/playground",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.0.0-20260924211604-6d73cff14c17",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "splitline (@splitline) from DEVCORE Research Team"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-09-24T21:10:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eA malicious txtar could escape the intended execution context and force arbitrary writes to the playground host\u0027s trusted filesystem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisjointly, one of the three possible paths to invoke\u0026nbsp;\u003ccode\u003ego vet\u003c/code\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the playground host did not correctly restrict the execution environment. This permitted a Go process to make a read for an environment configuration file rooted in the playground host\u0027s $HOME.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTogether, a well-crafted go env file and the\u0026nbsp;\u003ccode\u003ego vet\u003c/code\u003e\u0026nbsp;invocation could lead to remote code execution in the playground host itself.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis does not affect users of go.dev/play directly; however, it may affect\u0026nbsp;independent deployments of golang.org/x/playground.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "A malicious txtar could escape the intended execution context and force arbitrary writes to the playground host\u0027s trusted filesystem.\n\n\n\nDisjointly, one of the three possible paths to invoke\u00a0go vet\u00a0on the playground host did not correctly restrict the execution environment. This permitted a Go process to make a read for an environment configuration file rooted in the playground host\u0027s $HOME.\n\n\n\nTogether, a well-crafted go env file and the\u00a0go vet\u00a0invocation could lead to remote code execution in the playground host itself.\n\n\n\n\nThis does not affect users of go.dev/play directly; however, it may affect\u00a0independent deployments of golang.org/x/playground."
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper input validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-25T16:43:06.941Z",
"orgId": "1bb62c36-49e3-4200-9d77-64a1400537cc",
"shortName": "Go"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://go.dev/issue/81737"
},
{
"url": "https://go.dev/cl/838485"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Malicious user input may lead to RCE in golang.org/x/playground",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.5"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "1bb62c36-49e3-4200-9d77-64a1400537cc",
"assignerShortName": "Go",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-94445",
"datePublished": "2026-09-25T16:43:06.941Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-21T16:43:04.757Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-25T17:08:14.767Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-94383 (GCVE-0-2026-94383)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-21 12:52 – Updated: 2026-09-21 14:48| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/e5a943178 | patch |
qwen3.8:27b
advisory
bcp-05-x-01bcp-05-x-02
Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-09-21 12:44 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/e5a943178.patch
9b7cc757cbbc… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
e5a9431784b4
|
fix: [security] arbitrary script execution via insufficient | 9b7cc757cbbc… |
Fix summary
The vulnerability is remediated by enforcing a strict whitelist of allowed file extensions (txt, list, blocklist, csv) on the blocklist filename parameter before the file is processed. Any filename with an extension outside this whitelist is rejected with an error, preventing an attacker from placing files with executable or dangerous extensions (e.g., .php, .phtml) into the MISP export directory where they could be interpreted by the web server.
Patch summary
In app/Model/WorkflowModules/action/Module_blocklist_action.php, five lines are inserted after the existing basename() call. The added code defines an $allowedExtensions array containing 'txt', 'list', 'blocklist', and 'csv', extracts the file extension via pathinfo() with PATHINFO_EXTENSION, and performs a strict (===) in_array() check. If the extension is not in the whitelist, the method returns early with a failure message 'Blocklist filename has an invalid extension.' This check is placed before the existing empty/dot filename validation.
CVSS rationale
AV:N: MISP is a network-accessible web application. AC:L: The attack requires only specifying a filename with a dangerous extension in a workflow parameter; no race conditions or complex timing are needed. AT:N: No manipulation of the target system is required beyond the normal API call. PR:H: The commit message explicitly states 'site admin only', requiring high-privilege MISP access. UI:N: No victim interaction is needed; the workflow action is triggered by the admin themselves. VC:H, VI:H, VA:H: Arbitrary script execution on the MISP server compromises all three local security properties. SC:N, SI:N, SA:N: The impact is confined to the MISP server; no evidence of lateral impact on other systems is present in the patch.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-434 The blocklist filename parameter accepted arbitrary file extensions without restriction. A site admin could supply a filename with a dangerous extension (e.g., .php) that would be placed in a web-accessible export directory, enabling script execution. The fix restricts extensions to a safe whitelist, which is the canonical remediation for CWE-434.
- CWE-20 The filename parameter was not validated against a set of acceptable values (extensions). Only path stripping and empty-string checks were performed, leaving the extension entirely unvalidated. This is a general improper input validation weakness that enabled the more specific dangerous-file-type issue.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-170 CAPEC-170 describes an attacker uploading or placing a file with a dangerous extension into a target directory where it can be executed. In this case, a site admin specifies a blocklist filename with a dangerous extension (e.g., .php) that is placed in the MISP export directory. The mechanism is not a traditional multipart upload but rather a workflow parameter that results in a file being written to a web-accessible location. CAPEC-170 is the closest available pattern; the uncertainty is that the file is not uploaded via a standard upload endpoint but is instead referenced by name in a workflow action, making the mapping approximate.
Assumptions to verify
- The commit message states 'site admin only', which is taken as evidence that the vulnerable workflow module requires MISP site-administrator privileges. The exact privilege model and whether lower-privilege roles could reach this code path is not confirmed by the patch alone.
- The assumption that the MISP export directory is web-accessible and that the web server is configured to execute scripts (e.g., PHP) from that directory is inferred from the commit subject 'arbitrary script execution'. The patch does not include web server configuration evidence.
- The affected version boundary (prior to v2.5.47) is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata showing v2.5.47 as the nearest tag with 142 commits after the fix. The exact first affected version is not stated in the patch.
- CAPEC-170 (File Upload) is the closest available attack pattern, but the actual mechanism is a workflow parameter specifying a filename rather than a traditional file upload. This mapping is approximate.
- The CVSS PR:H rating assumes that 'site admin' in MISP corresponds to a high-privilege role requiring authentication and elevated permissions, consistent with MISP's role model.
Model comparison
Selected qwen3.8:27b
by deterministic-consensus-v1
The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required.
| Model | Score | Agreement | Confidence | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
qwen3.8:27b |
5 | 9 | medium | 5 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-94383",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-21T14:37:12.233579Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T14:48:17.369Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"modules": [
"WorkflowModules/action/Module_blocklist_action"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Model/WorkflowModules/action/Module_blocklist_action.php"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.47",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe MISP blocklist workflow module accepted a user-supplied blocklist filename parameter without validating the file extension. The only sanitization applied was basename() to strip path components and a check for empty or dot values. A site administrator could specify a filename with an arbitrary extension that would be placed in the MISP export directory. If the underlying web server is configured to interpret and execute scripts from that directory, the resulting file could be invoked, leading to arbitrary code execution in the context of the web server process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe vulnerability requires the attacker to hold site-administrator privileges within MISP, as the blocklist workflow module is restricted to that role. No additional user interaction is required beyond triggering the workflow action with a crafted filename parameter. The impact is full compromise of the MISP server\u0027s confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as arbitrary script execution grants the attacker the same privileges as the web server user.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVersion affected: \u0026lt;2.5.47\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The MISP blocklist workflow module accepted a user-supplied blocklist filename parameter without validating the file extension. The only sanitization applied was basename() to strip path components and a check for empty or dot values. A site administrator could specify a filename with an arbitrary extension that would be placed in the MISP export directory. If the underlying web server is configured to interpret and execute scripts from that directory, the resulting file could be invoked, leading to arbitrary code execution in the context of the web server process.\n\nThe vulnerability requires the attacker to hold site-administrator privileges within MISP, as the blocklist workflow module is restricted to that role. No additional user interaction is required beyond triggering the workflow action with a crafted filename parameter. The impact is full compromise of the MISP server\u0027s confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as arbitrary script execution grants the attacker the same privileges as the web server user.\n\nVersion affected: \u003c2.5.47"
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-170",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-170 File Upload"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 8.6,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "HIGH",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-434",
"description": "CWE-434 Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T12:52:03.355Z",
"orgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"shortName": "CIRCL"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/e5a943178"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe vulnerability is remediated by enforcing a strict whitelist of allowed file extensions (txt, list, blocklist, csv) on the blocklist filename parameter before the file is processed. Any filename with an extension outside this whitelist is rejected with an error, preventing an attacker from placing files with executable or dangerous extensions (e.g., .php, .phtml) into the MISP export directory where they could be interpreted by the web server.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The vulnerability is remediated by enforcing a strict whitelist of allowed file extensions (txt, list, blocklist, csv) on the blocklist filename parameter before the file is processed. Any filename with an extension outside this whitelist is rejected with an error, preventing an attacker from placing files with executable or dangerous extensions (e.g., .php, .phtml) into the MISP export directory where they could be interpreted by the web server."
}
],
"title": "MISP Blocklist Workflow Module: Arbitrary Script Execution via Unrestricted File Extension",
"x_gcve": [
{
"extensions": {
"bcp-05-x-01": {
"ai_annotations": [
{
"ai_level": "generated",
"description": "Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.",
"gna_source": 1,
"models": [
{
"gna_source": 1,
"identifier": "qwen3.8:27b",
"name": "qwen3.8:27b",
"source": "ollama"
}
],
"review_status": "review",
"scope": "record",
"tags": [
"ai-computer-assisted:llm-generated",
"ai-computer-assisted:classification"
]
}
]
},
"bcp-05-x-02": {
"x_patch2vuln": {
"assumptions": [
"The commit message states \u0027site admin only\u0027, which is taken as evidence that the vulnerable workflow module requires MISP site-administrator privileges. The exact privilege model and whether lower-privilege roles could reach this code path is not confirmed by the patch alone.",
"The assumption that the MISP export directory is web-accessible and that the web server is configured to execute scripts (e.g., PHP) from that directory is inferred from the commit subject \u0027arbitrary script execution\u0027. The patch does not include web server configuration evidence.",
"The affected version boundary (prior to v2.5.47) is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata showing v2.5.47 as the nearest tag with 142 commits after the fix. The exact first affected version is not stated in the patch.",
"CAPEC-170 (File Upload) is the closest available attack pattern, but the actual mechanism is a workflow parameter specifying a filename rather than a traditional file upload. This mapping is approximate.",
"The CVSS PR:H rating assumes that \u0027site admin\u0027 in MISP corresponds to a high-privilege role requiring authentication and elevated permissions, consistent with MISP\u0027s role model."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-170",
"rationale": "CAPEC-170 describes an attacker uploading or placing a file with a dangerous extension into a target directory where it can be executed. In this case, a site admin specifies a blocklist filename with a dangerous extension (e.g., .php) that is placed in the MISP export directory. The mechanism is not a traditional multipart upload but rather a workflow parameter that results in a file being written to a web-accessible location. CAPEC-170 is the closest available pattern; the uncertainty is that the file is not uploaded via a standard upload endpoint but is instead referenced by name in a workflow action, making the mapping approximate."
}
],
"commit": "e5a9431784b4a78faddc0cc6efc2a287f2fd3d08",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N: MISP is a network-accessible web application. AC:L: The attack requires only specifying a filename with a dangerous extension in a workflow parameter; no race conditions or complex timing are needed. AT:N: No manipulation of the target system is required beyond the normal API call. PR:H: The commit message explicitly states \u0027site admin only\u0027, requiring high-privilege MISP access. UI:N: No victim interaction is needed; the workflow action is triggered by the admin themselves. VC:H, VI:H, VA:H: Arbitrary script execution on the MISP server compromises all three local security properties. SC:N, SI:N, SA:N: The impact is confined to the MISP server; no evidence of lateral impact on other systems is present in the patch.",
"fixSummary": "The vulnerability is remediated by enforcing a strict whitelist of allowed file extensions (txt, list, blocklist, csv) on the blocklist filename parameter before the file is processed. Any filename with an extension outside this whitelist is rejected with an error, preventing an attacker from placing files with executable or dangerous extensions (e.g., .php, .phtml) into the MISP export directory where they could be interpreted by the web server.",
"generatedAt": "2026-09-21T12:44:28.234229Z",
"generator": "patch2vuln.py",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"modelComparison": {
"rankings": [
{
"agreementScore": 9,
"assumptionCount": 5,
"confidence": "medium",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"score": 5
}
],
"selectedModel": "qwen3.8:27b",
"selectionMethod": "deterministic-consensus-v1",
"selectionNotice": "The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required."
},
"patchSha256": "9b7cc757cbbc8a4dd7491c6388e0ee12057c790bb6ca21e10b1d78209bbb7748",
"patchSummary": "In app/Model/WorkflowModules/action/Module_blocklist_action.php, five lines are inserted after the existing basename() call. The added code defines an $allowedExtensions array containing \u0027txt\u0027, \u0027list\u0027, \u0027blocklist\u0027, and \u0027csv\u0027, extracts the file extension via pathinfo() with PATHINFO_EXTENSION, and performs a strict (===) in_array() check. If the extension is not in the whitelist, the method returns early with a failure message \u0027Blocklist filename has an invalid extension.\u0027 This check is placed before the existing empty/dot filename validation.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "e5a9431784b4a78faddc0cc6efc2a287f2fd3d08",
"patchSha256": "9b7cc757cbbc8a4dd7491c6388e0ee12057c790bb6ca21e10b1d78209bbb7748",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/e5a943178.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/e5a943178.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] arbitrary script execution via insufficient"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/e5a943178.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] arbitrary script execution via insufficient",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 142,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.47",
"version": "2.5.47",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-434",
"rationale": "The blocklist filename parameter accepted arbitrary file extensions without restriction. A site admin could supply a filename with a dangerous extension (e.g., .php) that would be placed in a web-accessible export directory, enabling script execution. The fix restricts extensions to a safe whitelist, which is the canonical remediation for CWE-434."
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"rationale": "The filename parameter was not validated against a set of acceptable values (extensions). Only path stripping and empty-string checks were performed, leaving the extension entirely unvalidated. This is a general improper input validation weakness that enabled the more specific dangerous-file-type issue."
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20009"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"assignerShortName": "CIRCL",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-94383",
"datePublished": "2026-09-21T12:52:03.355Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-21T12:52:01.101Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T14:48:17.369Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-94379 (GCVE-0-2026-94379)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-21 12:35 – Updated: 2026-09-21 15:21| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ef4dc19c6 | patch |
qwen3.8:27b
advisory
bcp-05-x-01bcp-05-x-02
Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-09-21 12:30 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ef4dc19c6.patch
ff6f133b194f… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
ef4dc19c6d4f
|
fix: [security] insufficient check on http methods for the | ff6f133b194f… |
Fix summary
The fix replaces the allowlist-style HTTP method checks (is POST or PUT) with a denylist approach (is NOT GET) in all three security-critical branches of the login() function. This ensures that every non-GET HTTP method—regardless of whether it is POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS, or any other—triggers the bruteforce protection, email OTP verification, and login-failure logging code paths, closing the method-based bypass.
Patch summary
Three conditional expressions in UsersController::login() were changed. (1) The bruteforce-protection guard changed from $this->request->is(['post','put']) to !$this->request->is(['get']). (2) The email-OTP guard changed from $this->request->is('post') to !$this->request->is(['get']). (3) The login-failure handling guard changed from $this->request->is('post') || $this->request->is('put') to !$this->request->is('get'). All three changes invert the logic from an explicit allowlist of methods to a denylist that excludes only GET, so that any other HTTP method is treated as a state-changing login attempt subject to all security controls.
CVSS rationale
AV:N – the login endpoint is network-accessible. AC:L – the attack requires only changing the HTTP method in a request; no race conditions or complex setup. AT:N – no manipulation of the target system is needed. PR:N – the login endpoint is accessible without prior authentication. UI:N – no user interaction required. VC:L – bypass of bruteforce protection enables credential brute-forcing, potentially exposing user credentials. VI:L – bypass of email OTP (2FA) and failure logging compromises the integrity of the authentication process and audit trail. VA:N – no direct denial-of-service impact. SC/SI/SA:N – no secondary system impact is evidenced.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-20 The root cause is that the application validated the HTTP method using an incomplete allowlist (POST, PUT) rather than rejecting all non-safe methods. This is a classic improper input validation flaw where the set of accepted values was not exhaustive, allowing unexpected methods to bypass security logic.
- CWE-285 The security controls (bruteforce protection, OTP enforcement, failure logging) are authorization/authentication enforcement mechanisms that were improperly applied only to a subset of HTTP methods, effectively allowing unauthorized bypass of these controls.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-1 The attacker modifies a parameter of the authentication request (the HTTP method) to alter which security checks are executed, effectively modifying the authentication logic at runtime. This is the closest CAPEC to the observed bypass. Uncertainty: CAPEC-1 typically refers to modifying authentication logic in a more direct sense (e.g., altering credential checks), whereas here the modification is via the HTTP method header. However, no other CAPEC more precisely captures the act of altering a request attribute to skip authentication security controls.
Assumptions to verify
- The exact affected version range is not explicitly stated in the patch; the tag_version_boundary metadata indicates v2.5.47 with 143 commits after the fix, suggesting the fix landed shortly after 2.5.47, but the precise last-affected and first-fixed versions are not confirmed.
- The CAPEC-1 mapping is the closest available pattern; the actual attack vector (HTTP method substitution) is a form of request parameter manipulation that does not have a dedicated CAPEC entry, so CAPEC-1 is used as the best approximation.
- The CVSS vector assumes the MISP instance is exposed over a network and that the login endpoint is reachable without prior authentication, which is the standard deployment model for MISP.
- The patch does not include a test case demonstrating the bypass; the analysis is based solely on the code diff and commit message.
- It is assumed that the MISP framework (CakePHP) does not independently enforce HTTP method restrictions at a middleware layer that would have already blocked non-POST/PUT methods to this endpoint; the patch implies such enforcement was absent.
Model comparison
Selected qwen3.8:27b
by deterministic-consensus-v1
The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required.
| Model | Score | Agreement | Confidence | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
qwen3.8:27b |
5 | 9 | medium | 5 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-94379",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-21T15:20:43.610267Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T15:21:01.092Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"modules": [
"UsersController (login endpoint)"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Controller/UsersController.php"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.47",
"status": "affected",
"version": "unspecified",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe login() function in MISP\u0027s UsersController.php contained insufficient HTTP method validation for several security-critical code paths. The original code used an allowlist approach, checking only for specific HTTP methods (POST and PUT) before enforcing bruteforce protection, email one-time-password (OTP) verification, and login-failure logging. Because the checks were not exhaustive, an unauthenticated attacker could issue login requests using other HTTP methods and bypass all three security controls simultaneously. Specifically:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u2003-\u0026nbsp;the bruteforce blocklisting check and attempt counter were skipped, allowing unlimited credential-guessing attempts without being rate-limited or blocked\u003cbr\u003e\u2003-\u0026nbsp; the email OTP two-factor authentication step was skipped, defeating the second factor of authentication\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u2003- login-failure events were neither logged nor counted, removing the audit trail and the mechanism that would normally trigger a blocklist entry.\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe security impact is the effective disabling of brute-force protection and multi-factor authentication for any attacker who can craft an HTTP request with a non-POST/PUT method to the login endpoint, potentially leading to credential compromise and unauthorized access to the MISP instance.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eVersion affected: \u0026lt;2.5.47\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The login() function in MISP\u0027s UsersController.php contained insufficient HTTP method validation for several security-critical code paths. The original code used an allowlist approach, checking only for specific HTTP methods (POST and PUT) before enforcing bruteforce protection, email one-time-password (OTP) verification, and login-failure logging. Because the checks were not exhaustive, an unauthenticated attacker could issue login requests using other HTTP methods and bypass all three security controls simultaneously. Specifically:\u00a0\n\n\u2003-\u00a0the bruteforce blocklisting check and attempt counter were skipped, allowing unlimited credential-guessing attempts without being rate-limited or blocked\n\u2003-\u00a0 the email OTP two-factor authentication step was skipped, defeating the second factor of authentication\n\u2003- login-failure events were neither logged nor counted, removing the audit trail and the mechanism that would normally trigger a blocklist entry.\n\n\n\n\nThe security impact is the effective disabling of brute-force protection and multi-factor authentication for any attacker who can craft an HTTP request with a non-POST/PUT method to the login endpoint, potentially leading to credential compromise and unauthorized access to the MISP instance.\n\n\n\n\n\nVersion affected: \u003c2.5.47"
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-1",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-1 Improperly Controlled Modification of Authentication Logic"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6.9,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285 Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T12:35:26.533Z",
"orgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"shortName": "CIRCL"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ef4dc19c6"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe fix replaces the allowlist-style HTTP method checks (is POST or PUT) with a denylist approach (is NOT GET) in all three security-critical branches of the login() function. This ensures that every non-GET HTTP method\u2014regardless of whether it is POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS, or any other\u2014triggers the bruteforce protection, email OTP verification, and login-failure logging code paths, closing the method-based bypass.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix replaces the allowlist-style HTTP method checks (is POST or PUT) with a denylist approach (is NOT GET) in all three security-critical branches of the login() function. This ensures that every non-GET HTTP method\u2014regardless of whether it is POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS, or any other\u2014triggers the bruteforce protection, email OTP verification, and login-failure logging code paths, closing the method-based bypass."
}
],
"title": "MISP: HTTP Method Bypass of Login Security Controls (Bruteforce Protection and Email OTP)",
"x_gcve": [
{
"extensions": {
"bcp-05-x-01": {
"ai_annotations": [
{
"ai_level": "generated",
"description": "Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.",
"gna_source": 1,
"models": [
{
"gna_source": 1,
"identifier": "qwen3.8:27b",
"name": "qwen3.8:27b",
"source": "ollama"
}
],
"review_status": "review",
"scope": "record",
"tags": [
"ai-computer-assisted:llm-generated",
"ai-computer-assisted:classification"
]
}
]
},
"bcp-05-x-02": {
"x_patch2vuln": {
"assumptions": [
"The exact affected version range is not explicitly stated in the patch; the tag_version_boundary metadata indicates v2.5.47 with 143 commits after the fix, suggesting the fix landed shortly after 2.5.47, but the precise last-affected and first-fixed versions are not confirmed.",
"The CAPEC-1 mapping is the closest available pattern; the actual attack vector (HTTP method substitution) is a form of request parameter manipulation that does not have a dedicated CAPEC entry, so CAPEC-1 is used as the best approximation.",
"The CVSS vector assumes the MISP instance is exposed over a network and that the login endpoint is reachable without prior authentication, which is the standard deployment model for MISP.",
"The patch does not include a test case demonstrating the bypass; the analysis is based solely on the code diff and commit message.",
"It is assumed that the MISP framework (CakePHP) does not independently enforce HTTP method restrictions at a middleware layer that would have already blocked non-POST/PUT methods to this endpoint; the patch implies such enforcement was absent."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-1",
"rationale": "The attacker modifies a parameter of the authentication request (the HTTP method) to alter which security checks are executed, effectively modifying the authentication logic at runtime. This is the closest CAPEC to the observed bypass. Uncertainty: CAPEC-1 typically refers to modifying authentication logic in a more direct sense (e.g., altering credential checks), whereas here the modification is via the HTTP method header. However, no other CAPEC more precisely captures the act of altering a request attribute to skip authentication security controls."
}
],
"commit": "ef4dc19c6d4f029c3173e5fafea75a94c127f8b5",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N \u2013 the login endpoint is network-accessible. AC:L \u2013 the attack requires only changing the HTTP method in a request; no race conditions or complex setup. AT:N \u2013 no manipulation of the target system is needed. PR:N \u2013 the login endpoint is accessible without prior authentication. UI:N \u2013 no user interaction required. VC:L \u2013 bypass of bruteforce protection enables credential brute-forcing, potentially exposing user credentials. VI:L \u2013 bypass of email OTP (2FA) and failure logging compromises the integrity of the authentication process and audit trail. VA:N \u2013 no direct denial-of-service impact. SC/SI/SA:N \u2013 no secondary system impact is evidenced.",
"fixSummary": "The fix replaces the allowlist-style HTTP method checks (is POST or PUT) with a denylist approach (is NOT GET) in all three security-critical branches of the login() function. This ensures that every non-GET HTTP method\u2014regardless of whether it is POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS, or any other\u2014triggers the bruteforce protection, email OTP verification, and login-failure logging code paths, closing the method-based bypass.",
"generatedAt": "2026-09-21T12:30:02.387878Z",
"generator": "patch2vuln.py",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"modelComparison": {
"rankings": [
{
"agreementScore": 9,
"assumptionCount": 5,
"confidence": "medium",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"score": 5
}
],
"selectedModel": "qwen3.8:27b",
"selectionMethod": "deterministic-consensus-v1",
"selectionNotice": "The selected result is closest to model consensus; this heuristic does not establish factual correctness and human review remains required."
},
"patchSha256": "ff6f133b194fcd5c913990fce421bd56de7a12e488291a2ec7422d92284e71d8",
"patchSummary": "Three conditional expressions in UsersController::login() were changed. (1) The bruteforce-protection guard changed from $this-\u003erequest-\u003eis([\u0027post\u0027,\u0027put\u0027]) to !$this-\u003erequest-\u003eis([\u0027get\u0027]). (2) The email-OTP guard changed from $this-\u003erequest-\u003eis(\u0027post\u0027) to !$this-\u003erequest-\u003eis([\u0027get\u0027]). (3) The login-failure handling guard changed from $this-\u003erequest-\u003eis(\u0027post\u0027) || $this-\u003erequest-\u003eis(\u0027put\u0027) to !$this-\u003erequest-\u003eis(\u0027get\u0027). All three changes invert the logic from an explicit allowlist of methods to a denylist that excludes only GET, so that any other HTTP method is treated as a state-changing login attempt subject to all security controls.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "ef4dc19c6d4f029c3173e5fafea75a94c127f8b5",
"patchSha256": "ff6f133b194fcd5c913990fce421bd56de7a12e488291a2ec7422d92284e71d8",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ef4dc19c6.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ef4dc19c6.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] insufficient check on http methods for the"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ef4dc19c6.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] insufficient check on http methods for the",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 143,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.47",
"version": "2.5.47",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"rationale": "The root cause is that the application validated the HTTP method using an incomplete allowlist (POST, PUT) rather than rejecting all non-safe methods. This is a classic improper input validation flaw where the set of accepted values was not exhaustive, allowing unexpected methods to bypass security logic."
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"rationale": "The security controls (bruteforce protection, OTP enforcement, failure logging) are authorization/authentication enforcement mechanisms that were improperly applied only to a subset of HTTP methods, effectively allowing unauthorized bypass of these controls."
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20013"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8",
"assignerShortName": "CIRCL",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-94379",
"datePublished": "2026-09-21T12:35:26.533Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-21T12:35:24.635Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T15:21:01.092Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-94093 (GCVE-0-2026-94093)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-20 22:45 – Updated: 2026-09-21 16:21| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://vuldb.com/vuln/408021 | vdb-entrytechnical-description |
| https://vuldb.com/vuln/408021/cti | signaturepermissions-required |
| https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-94093 | third-party-advisory |
| https://vuldb.com/submit/952734 | third-party-advisory |
| https://github.com/DLR-RM/stable-baselines3/issues/2281 | issue-tracking |
| https://github.com/DLR-RM/stable-baselines3/ | product |
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DLR-RM | stable-baselines3 |
Affected:
2.0
Affected: 2.1 Affected: 2.2 Affected: 2.3 Affected: 2.4 Affected: 2.5 Affected: 2.6 Affected: 2.7 Affected: 2.8 Affected: 2.9.0 cpe:2.3:a:dlr-rm:stable-baselines3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-94093",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-21T16:20:51.056033Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T16:21:48.911Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/DLR-RM/stable-baselines3/issues/2281"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:dlr-rm:stable-baselines3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"product": "stable-baselines3",
"vendor": "DLR-RM",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.8"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.9.0"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "__lbz__ (VulDB User)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "VulDB CNA Team"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "A security vulnerability has been detected in DLR-RM stable-baselines3 up to 2.9.0. This affects the function PPO.load/load_replay_buffer/VecNormalize.load of the file save_util.py. Such manipulation leads to deserialization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. In v2.9.0 the PyTorch tensor load path is hardened (weights_only=True), but that hardening was later reverted on master via PR #1913 \"Hotfix: revert loading with weights_only=True\" [blocked] to fix PyTorch 1.13 compat - so even the one \"safe\" path is inconsistent across versions. #2281 was closed as a duplicate of #1831 since both are unsafe pickle deserialization - but #1831\u0027s fix (PR #41) only gated the Hugging Face Hub loader in the separate huggingface_sb3 package. This finding covers the core stable_baselines3 load APIs (PPO.load, load_replay_buffer, VecNormalize.load), which have no safe mode or gate and remained exploitable in v2.9.0 until the outstanding hardening (PR #2264) ships."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"version": "4.0"
}
},
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 6.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L/E:P/RL:X/RC:R",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"cvssV3_0": {
"baseScore": 6.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L/E:P/RL:X/RC:R",
"version": "3.0"
}
},
{
"cvssV2_0": {
"baseScore": 7.5,
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P/E:POC/RL:ND/RC:UR",
"version": "2.0"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-502",
"description": "Deserialization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-20T22:45:17.509Z",
"orgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
"shortName": "VulDB"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "VDB-408021 | DLR-RM stable-baselines3 save_util.py VecNormalize.load deserialization",
"tags": [
"vdb-entry",
"technical-description"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408021"
},
{
"name": "VDB-408021 | CTI Indicators (IOB, IOC, IOA)",
"tags": [
"signature",
"permissions-required"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408021/cti"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-94093 | CVE Analysis and Report",
"tags": [
"third-party-advisory"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-94093"
},
{
"name": "Submit #952734 | DLR-RM stable-baselines3 v2.9.0 rce",
"tags": [
"third-party-advisory"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/952734"
},
{
"tags": [
"issue-tracking"
],
"url": "https://github.com/DLR-RM/stable-baselines3/issues/2281"
},
{
"tags": [
"product"
],
"url": "https://github.com/DLR-RM/stable-baselines3/"
}
],
"timeline": [
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "Advisory disclosed"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T02:00:00.000Z",
"value": "VulDB entry created"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T10:44:18.000Z",
"value": "VulDB entry last update"
}
],
"title": "DLR-RM stable-baselines3 save_util.py VecNormalize.load deserialization",
"x_generator": [
"VulDB PVTS v202609"
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
"assignerShortName": "VulDB",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-94093",
"datePublished": "2026-09-20T22:45:17.509Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-20T08:39:03.152Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T16:21:48.911Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-94092 (GCVE-0-2026-94092)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-20 22:30 – Updated: 2026-09-24 12:40| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://vuldb.com/vuln/408022 | vdb-entrytechnical-description |
| https://vuldb.com/vuln/408022/cti | signaturepermissions-required |
| https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-94092 | third-party-advisory |
| https://vuldb.com/submit/952703 | third-party-advisory |
| https://github.com/dmlc/dgl/issues/7932 | exploitissue-tracking |
| https://github.com/dmlc/dgl/ | product |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-94092",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-24T12:40:13.269707Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-24T12:40:30.524Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:dmlc:dgl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"product": "dgl",
"vendor": "dmlc",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.1.0"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "__lbz__ (VulDB User)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "VulDB CNA Team"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "A vulnerability was detected in dmlc dgl up to 2.1.0. This impacts the function load_info/_read_torch_data of the file utils.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument path results in deserialization. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"baseScore": 5.1,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"version": "4.0"
}
},
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L/E:P/RL:X/RC:R",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"cvssV3_0": {
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L/E:P/RL:X/RC:R",
"version": "3.0"
}
},
{
"cvssV2_0": {
"baseScore": 6.5,
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P/E:POC/RL:ND/RC:UR",
"version": "2.0"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-502",
"description": "Deserialization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-20T22:30:17.893Z",
"orgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
"shortName": "VulDB"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "VDB-408022 | dmlc dgl utils.py _read_torch_data deserialization",
"tags": [
"vdb-entry",
"technical-description"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408022"
},
{
"name": "VDB-408022 | CTI Indicators (IOB, IOC, IOA)",
"tags": [
"signature",
"permissions-required"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408022/cti"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-94092 | CVE Analysis and Report",
"tags": [
"third-party-advisory"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-94092"
},
{
"name": "Submit #952703 | dmlc dgl 2.1.0 rce",
"tags": [
"third-party-advisory"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/952703"
},
{
"tags": [
"exploit",
"issue-tracking"
],
"url": "https://github.com/dmlc/dgl/issues/7932"
},
{
"tags": [
"product"
],
"url": "https://github.com/dmlc/dgl/"
}
],
"timeline": [
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "Advisory disclosed"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T02:00:00.000Z",
"value": "VulDB entry created"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T10:44:22.000Z",
"value": "VulDB entry last update"
}
],
"title": "dmlc dgl utils.py _read_torch_data deserialization",
"x_generator": [
"VulDB PVTS v202609"
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
"assignerShortName": "VulDB",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-94092",
"datePublished": "2026-09-20T22:30:17.893Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-20T08:38:59.731Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-24T12:40:30.524Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-94091 (GCVE-0-2026-94091)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-20 22:15 – Updated: 2026-09-21 10:58| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://vuldb.com/vuln/408020 | vdb-entrytechnical-description |
| https://vuldb.com/vuln/408020/cti | signaturepermissions-required |
| https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-94091 | third-party-advisory |
| https://vuldb.com/submit/952644 | third-party-advisory |
| https://github.com/piskvorky/gensim/issues/3663 | exploitissue-tracking |
| https://github.com/piskvorky/gensim/ | product |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-94091",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-21T10:57:26.650011Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T10:58:22.685Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:piskvorky:gensim:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"modules": [
"Model Loader"
],
"product": "gensim",
"vendor": "piskvorky",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.4.0"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "meraklbz (VulDB User)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "VulDB CNA Team"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "A weakness has been identified in piskvorky gensim up to 4.4.0. The impacted element is the function Load of the file gensim/utils.py of the component Model Loader. This manipulation of the argument fname causes deserialization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Maintainer closed #3663 same-day with no comment, PR, or fix; repo\u0027s last push (2025-11-01) predates the report, so the unsafe pickle.load in SaveLoad.load remains unguarded at develop HEAD."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"baseScore": 5.1,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"version": "4.0"
}
},
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L/E:P/RL:X/RC:R",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"cvssV3_0": {
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L/E:P/RL:X/RC:R",
"version": "3.0"
}
},
{
"cvssV2_0": {
"baseScore": 6.5,
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P/E:POC/RL:ND/RC:UR",
"version": "2.0"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-502",
"description": "Deserialization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-20T22:15:11.503Z",
"orgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
"shortName": "VulDB"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "VDB-408020 | piskvorky gensim Model Loader utils.py load deserialization",
"tags": [
"vdb-entry",
"technical-description"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408020"
},
{
"name": "VDB-408020 | CTI Indicators (IOB, IOC, IOA)",
"tags": [
"signature",
"permissions-required"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408020/cti"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-94091 | CVE Analysis and Report",
"tags": [
"third-party-advisory"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-94091"
},
{
"name": "Submit #952644 | piskvorky gensim \u003c=4.4.0 rce",
"tags": [
"third-party-advisory"
],
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/952644"
},
{
"tags": [
"exploit",
"issue-tracking"
],
"url": "https://github.com/piskvorky/gensim/issues/3663"
},
{
"tags": [
"product"
],
"url": "https://github.com/piskvorky/gensim/"
}
],
"timeline": [
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "Advisory disclosed"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T02:00:00.000Z",
"value": "VulDB entry created"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-20T10:36:44.000Z",
"value": "VulDB entry last update"
}
],
"title": "piskvorky gensim Model Loader utils.py load deserialization",
"x_generator": [
"VulDB PVTS v202609"
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
"assignerShortName": "VulDB",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-94091",
"datePublished": "2026-09-20T22:15:11.503Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-20T08:31:39.843Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-21T10:58:22.685Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-93995 (GCVE-0-2026-93995)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-30 09:38 – Updated: 2026-09-30 14:30- CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/k13ox2xlry38… | vendor-advisory |
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache Software Foundation | Apache MINA SSHD |
Affected:
0 , < 2.20.0
(maven)
Affected: 3.0.0-M1 , < 3.0.0-M6 (maven) |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-93995",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-30T14:30:48.778493Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-30T14:30:58.296Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "org.apache.sshd:sshd-git",
"packageURL": "pkg:maven/org.apache.sshd/sshd-git",
"product": "Apache MINA SSHD",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.20.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "maven"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.0.0-M6",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0-M1",
"versionType": "maven"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Ho1aAs \u003cxxy010605@gmail.com\u003e"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cdiv\u003eImproper input validation in sshd-git in Apache MINA SSHD, versions up to 2.19.0 and 3.0.0-M1 to 3.0.0-M5. Apache \nMINA SSHD is a Java library for client-side and server-side SSH.\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003eComponent org.apache.sshd:sshd-git provides though class GitPgmCommandFactory a way to configure an Apache MINA SSHD server such \nthat authenticated SSH clients can remotely execute git commands via the JGit library \non git repositories stored on the server. In\u0026nbsp;CVE-2026-58624 this mechanism was restricted to only a few git commands, including \"git archive\" without \"--output\" or \"-o\" options such that the resulting archive would not be written on the server but instead sent back to the client over the SSH connection.\u003c/div\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003eThe fix done for\u0026nbsp;CVE-2026-58624 was insufficient as it missed removing the single-argument \"-o=file.zip\"\u0026nbsp;version of the command parameter\u0026nbsp;from the \"archive\" command.\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003eUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 2.20.0 or 3.0.0-M6, which fix this issue."
}
],
"value": "Improper input validation in sshd-git in Apache MINA SSHD, versions up to 2.19.0 and 3.0.0-M1 to 3.0.0-M5. Apache \nMINA SSHD is a Java library for client-side and server-side SSH.\n\n\n\n\nComponent org.apache.sshd:sshd-git provides though class GitPgmCommandFactory a way to configure an Apache MINA SSHD server such \nthat authenticated SSH clients can remotely execute git commands via the JGit library \non git repositories stored on the server. In\u00a0CVE-2026-58624 this mechanism was restricted to only a few git commands, including \"git archive\" without \"--output\" or \"-o\" options such that the resulting archive would not be written on the server but instead sent back to the client over the SSH connection.\n\n\n\n\nThe fix done for\u00a0CVE-2026-58624 was insufficient as it missed removing the single-argument \"-o=file.zip\"\u00a0version of the command parameter\u00a0from the \"archive\" command.\n\n\n\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 2.20.0 or 3.0.0-M6, which fix this issue."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "moderate"
},
"type": "Textual description of severity"
},
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-30T09:38:47.654Z",
"orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"shortName": "apache"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/k13ox2xlry38h9gh6rhmh1d9zs345clk"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Apache MINA SSHD: Remote execution of JGit \"archive -o=file.zip\" can write file on the server",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.3"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"assignerShortName": "apache",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-93995",
"datePublished": "2026-09-30T09:38:47.654Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-19T12:55:41.059Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-30T14:30:58.296Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-93952 (GCVE-0-2026-93952)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-22 07:37 – Updated: 2026-09-23 03:55- CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://www.arista.com/en/support/advisories-noti… | vendor-advisory |
| https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilit… | government-resource |
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arista Networks | VeloCloud Orchestrator (VCO) On-Prem |
Affected:
5.2.0 , ≤ 5.2.3.15
(custom)
Affected: 6.1.0 , ≤ 6.1.3.7 (custom) Affected: 6.4.0 , ≤ 6.4.2.7 (custom) Affected: 7.0.0 , ≤ 7.0.0.2 (custom) |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-93952",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "active"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-22T00:00:00+00:00",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"dateAdded": "2026-09-22",
"reference": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-93952"
},
"type": "kev"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-23T03:55:40.823Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"government-resource"
],
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-93952"
}
],
"timeline": [
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-22T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "CVE-2026-93952 added to CISA KEV"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"platforms": [
"VeloCloud Orchestrator On-Prem"
],
"product": "VeloCloud Orchestrator (VCO) On-Prem",
"vendor": "Arista Networks",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "5.2.3.15",
"status": "affected",
"version": "5.2.0",
"versionType": "custom"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "6.1.3.7",
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.1.0",
"versionType": "custom"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "6.4.2.7",
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.4.0",
"versionType": "custom"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "7.0.0.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "7.0.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "VCO is exposed if certificate based authentication from the VeloCloud Edge to VeloCloud Orchestrator (VCO) is configured. Access to the public portion of the VeloCloud Edge authentication certificate is required. A successful attack requires network access to the VCO web interface. VCO tenant or operator credentials are not required for this exposure.\n\nDeployments that restrict VCO web interface access to trusted administrative networks can reduce risk of exposure."
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eVeloCloud Orchestrator (VCO) on-prem has a security issue where this issue may allow a remote attacker to access privileged internal functionality and impact the VCO host. Successful exploitation may compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the orchestrator and data managed by the orchestrator.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHosted, including Dedicated, versions of VCO were impacted and have already been patched.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "VeloCloud Orchestrator (VCO) on-prem has a security issue where this issue may allow a remote attacker to access privileged internal functionality and impact the VCO host. Successful exploitation may compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the orchestrator and data managed by the orchestrator.\n\nHosted, including Dedicated, versions of VCO were impacted and have already been patched."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-115",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-115 Authentication Bypass"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 10,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"baseScore": 9.5,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"version": "4.0"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T07:37:24.300Z",
"orgId": "c8b34d1a-69ae-45c3-88fe-f3b3d44f39b7",
"shortName": "Arista"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security Advisory 0183",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.arista.com/en/support/advisories-notices/security-advisory/24765-security-advisory-0183"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "The recommended resolution is to upgrade to a remediated VCO software version at your earliest convenience. These vulnerabilities have been fixed in the following releases:\n- VCO 5.2.3.16 and later in the 5.2.3 train\n- VCO 6.4.2.8 and later in the 6.4.2 train\n\nReleases in other release trains that fix this will be added over time. For VCOs not on a supported release train, customers can contact TAC to discuss possible upgrade options."
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "Security Advisory 0183",
"defect": [
"BUG1907167",
"BUG1937417"
],
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Security Advisory 0183",
"workarounds": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Until fixed software is deployed, operators should apply defense-in-depth controls appropriate for their environment:\n- Restrict access to the VCO web interface to trusted administrative networks.\n- Monitor the VCO for accesses from known malicious source IPs.\n- Monitor for unexpected outbound network activity from the VCO host.\n- Consider blocking outbound ports not needed for normal activities.\n- Monitor for backdoor daemons and webshells.\n- Review recent administrator activity for unexpected changes."
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "c8b34d1a-69ae-45c3-88fe-f3b3d44f39b7",
"assignerShortName": "Arista",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-93952",
"datePublished": "2026-09-22T07:37:24.300Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-19T01:37:47.225Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-23T03:55:40.823Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
Mitigation
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
Mitigation MIT-7
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Mitigation MIT-6
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation
- For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
Mitigation
When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
Mitigation MIT-35
Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
Mitigation
Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
Mitigation
- Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
- Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
Mitigation
When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CAPEC-10: Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
CAPEC-101: Server Side Include (SSI) Injection
An attacker can use Server Side Include (SSI) Injection to send code to a web application that then gets executed by the web server. Doing so enables the attacker to achieve similar results to Cross Site Scripting, viz., arbitrary code execution and information disclosure, albeit on a more limited scale, since the SSI directives are nowhere near as powerful as a full-fledged scripting language. Nonetheless, the attacker can conveniently gain access to sensitive files, such as password files, and execute shell commands.
CAPEC-104: Cross Zone Scripting
An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security.
CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
CAPEC-109: Object Relational Mapping Injection
An attacker leverages a weakness present in the database access layer code generated with an Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tool or a weakness in the way that a developer used a persistence framework to inject their own SQL commands to be executed against the underlying database. The attack here is similar to plain SQL injection, except that the application does not use JDBC to directly talk to the database, but instead it uses a data access layer generated by an ORM tool or framework (e.g. Hibernate). While most of the time code generated by an ORM tool contains safe access methods that are immune to SQL injection, sometimes either due to some weakness in the generated code or due to the fact that the developer failed to use the generated access methods properly, SQL injection is still possible.
CAPEC-110: SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering
An attacker modifies the parameters of the SOAP message that is sent from the service consumer to the service provider to initiate a SQL injection attack. On the service provider side, the SOAP message is parsed and parameters are not properly validated before being used to access a database in a way that does not use parameter binding, thus enabling the attacker to control the structure of the executed SQL query. This pattern describes a SQL injection attack with the delivery mechanism being a SOAP message.
CAPEC-120: Double Encoding
The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target.
CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-135: Format String Injection
An adversary includes formatting characters in a string input field on the target application. Most applications assume that users will provide static text and may respond unpredictably to the presence of formatting character. For example, in certain functions of the C programming languages such as printf, the formatting character %s will print the contents of a memory location expecting this location to identify a string and the formatting character %n prints the number of DWORD written in the memory. An adversary can use this to read or write to memory locations or files, or simply to manipulate the value of the resulting text in unexpected ways. Reading or writing memory may result in program crashes and writing memory could result in the execution of arbitrary code if the adversary can write to the program stack.
CAPEC-136: LDAP Injection
An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
CAPEC-14: Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads.
CAPEC-153: Input Data Manipulation
An attacker exploits a weakness in input validation by controlling the format, structure, and composition of data to an input-processing interface. By supplying input of a non-standard or unexpected form an attacker can adversely impact the security of the target.
CAPEC-182: Flash Injection
An attacker tricks a victim to execute malicious flash content that executes commands or makes flash calls specified by the attacker. One example of this attack is cross-site flashing, an attacker controlled parameter to a reference call loads from content specified by the attacker.
CAPEC-209: XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client
An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
CAPEC-23: File Content Injection
An adversary poisons files with a malicious payload (targeting the file systems accessible by the target software), which may be passed through by standard channels such as via email, and standard web content like PDF and multimedia files. The adversary exploits known vulnerabilities or handling routines in the target processes, in order to exploit the host's trust in executing remote content, including binary files.
CAPEC-230: Serialized Data with Nested Payloads
Applications often need to transform data in and out of a data format (e.g., XML and YAML) by using a parser. It may be possible for an adversary to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the parser when it is being processed. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. By nesting these structures, causing the data to be repeatedly substituted, an adversary can cause the parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization.
CAPEC-231: Oversized Serialized Data Payloads
An adversary injects oversized serialized data payloads into a parser during data processing to produce adverse effects upon the parser such as exhausting system resources and arbitrary code execution.
CAPEC-24: Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
CAPEC-250: XML Injection
An attacker utilizes crafted XML user-controllable input to probe, attack, and inject data into the XML database, using techniques similar to SQL injection. The user-controllable input can allow for unauthorized viewing of data, bypassing authentication or the front-end application for direct XML database access, and possibly altering database information.
CAPEC-261: Fuzzing for garnering other adjacent user/sensitive data
An adversary who is authorized to send queries to a target sends variants of expected queries in the hope that these modified queries might return information (directly or indirectly through error logs) beyond what the expected set of queries should provide.
CAPEC-267: Leverage Alternate Encoding
An adversary leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input or content used by applications such that the applications are ineffective at validating this encoding standard.
CAPEC-28: Fuzzing
In this attack pattern, the adversary leverages fuzzing to try to identify weaknesses in the system. Fuzzing is a software security and functionality testing method that feeds randomly constructed input to the system and looks for an indication that a failure in response to that input has occurred. Fuzzing treats the system as a black box and is totally free from any preconceptions or assumptions about the system. Fuzzing can help an attacker discover certain assumptions made about user input in the system. Fuzzing gives an attacker a quick way of potentially uncovering some of these assumptions despite not necessarily knowing anything about the internals of the system. These assumptions can then be turned against the system by specially crafting user input that may allow an attacker to achieve their goals.
CAPEC-3: Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters
Some APIs will strip certain leading characters from a string of parameters. An adversary can intentionally introduce leading "ghost" characters (extra characters that don't affect the validity of the request at the API layer) that enable the input to pass the filters and therefore process the adversary's input. This occurs when the targeted API will accept input data in several syntactic forms and interpret it in the equivalent semantic way, while the filter does not take into account the full spectrum of the syntactic forms acceptable to the targeted API.
CAPEC-31: Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. There are several different forms of this attack. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the adversary to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the adversary before it is sent back to the server. Here the adversary seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information.
CAPEC-42: MIME Conversion
An attacker exploits a weakness in the MIME conversion routine to cause a buffer overflow and gain control over the mail server machine. The MIME system is designed to allow various different information formats to be interpreted and sent via e-mail. Attack points exist when data are converted to MIME compatible format and back.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-46: Overflow Variables and Tags
This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The adversary crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
CAPEC-47: Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
In this attack, the target software is given input that the adversary knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
CAPEC-473: Signature Spoof
An attacker generates a message or datablock that causes the recipient to believe that the message or datablock was generated and cryptographically signed by an authoritative or reputable source, misleading a victim or victim operating system into performing malicious actions.
CAPEC-52: Embedding NULL Bytes
An adversary embeds one or more null bytes in input to the target software. This attack relies on the usage of a null-valued byte as a string terminator in many environments. The goal is for certain components of the target software to stop processing the input when it encounters the null byte(s).
CAPEC-53: Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash
If a string is passed through a filter of some kind, then a terminal NULL may not be valid. Using alternate representation of NULL allows an adversary to embed the NULL mid-string while postfixing the proper data so that the filter is avoided. One example is a filter that looks for a trailing slash character. If a string insertion is possible, but the slash must exist, an alternate encoding of NULL in mid-string may be used.
CAPEC-588: DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-64: Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
CAPEC-664: Server Side Request Forgery
An adversary exploits improper input validation by submitting maliciously crafted input to a target application running on a server, with the goal of forcing the server to make a request either to itself, to web services running in the server’s internal network, or to external third parties. If successful, the adversary’s request will be made with the server’s privilege level, bypassing its authentication controls. This ultimately allows the adversary to access sensitive data, execute commands on the server’s network, and make external requests with the stolen identity of the server. Server Side Request Forgery attacks differ from Cross Site Request Forgery attacks in that they target the server itself, whereas CSRF attacks exploit an insecure user authentication mechanism to perform unauthorized actions on the user's behalf.
CAPEC-67: String Format Overflow in syslog()
This attack targets applications and software that uses the syslog() function insecurely. If an application does not explicitely use a format string parameter in a call to syslog(), user input can be placed in the format string parameter leading to a format string injection attack. Adversaries can then inject malicious format string commands into the function call leading to a buffer overflow. There are many reported software vulnerabilities with the root cause being a misuse of the syslog() function.
CAPEC-7: Blind SQL Injection
Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection.
CAPEC-71: Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly.
CAPEC-72: URL Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the URL. An adversary can take advantage of the multiple way of encoding an URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL.
CAPEC-73: User-Controlled Filename
An attack of this type involves an adversary inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
CAPEC-78: Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
CAPEC-79: Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
CAPEC-8: Buffer Overflow in an API Call
This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An adversary who has knowledge of known vulnerable libraries or shared code can easily target software that makes use of these libraries. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
CAPEC-80: Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.
CAPEC-81: Web Server Logs Tampering
Web Logs Tampering attacks involve an attacker injecting, deleting or otherwise tampering with the contents of web logs typically for the purposes of masking other malicious behavior. Additionally, writing malicious data to log files may target jobs, filters, reports, and other agents that process the logs in an asynchronous attack pattern. This pattern of attack is similar to "Log Injection-Tampering-Forging" except that in this case, the attack is targeting the logs of the web server and not the application.
CAPEC-83: XPath Injection
An attacker can craft special user-controllable input consisting of XPath expressions to inject the XML database and bypass authentication or glean information that they normally would not be able to. XPath Injection enables an attacker to talk directly to the XML database, thus bypassing the application completely. XPath Injection results from the failure of an application to properly sanitize input used as part of dynamic XPath expressions used to query an XML database.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.
CAPEC-9: Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An adversary can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.