Common Weakness Enumeration
CWE-285
DiscouragedImproper Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
2826 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
CVE-2026-22022 (GCVE-0-2026-22022)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-01-21 13:41 – Updated: 2026-01-21 15:35
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Apache Solr: Unauthorized bypass of certain "predefined permission" rules in the RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin
Summary
Deployments of Apache Solr 5.3.0 through 9.10.0 that rely on Solr's "Rule Based Authorization Plugin" are vulnerable to allowing unauthorized access to certain Solr APIs, due to insufficiently strict input validation in those components. Only deployments that meet all of the following criteria are impacted by this vulnerability:
* Use of Solr's "RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin"
* A RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin config (see security.json) that specifies multiple "roles"
* A RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin permission list (see security.json) that uses one or more of the following pre-defined permission rules: "config-read", "config-edit", "schema-read", "metrics-read", or "security-read".
* A RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin permission list that doesn't define the "all" pre-defined permission
* A networking setup that allows clients to make unfiltered network requests to Solr. (i.e. user-submitted HTTP/HTTPS requests reach Solr as-is, unmodified or restricted by any intervening proxy or gateway)
Users can mitigate this vulnerability by ensuring that their RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin configuration specifies the "all" pre-defined permission and associates the permission with an "admin" or other privileged role. Users can also upgrade to a Solr version outside of the impacted range, such as the recently released Solr 9.10.1.
Severity
8.2 (High)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-01-21 15:34 UTC
CWE
- CWE-285 - Improper Authorization
Assigner
References
2 references
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache Software Foundation | Apache Solr |
Affected:
5.3 , ≤ 9.10.0
(semver)
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-01-21T14:13:29.934Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/01/20/4"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
},
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 8.2,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-22022",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-01-21T15:34:12.691456Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-01-21T15:35:07.116Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Apache Solr",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "9.10.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "5.3",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "monkeontheroof"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Deployments of Apache Solr 5.3.0 through 9.10.0 that rely on Solr\u0027s \"Rule Based Authorization Plugin\" are vulnerable to allowing unauthorized access to certain Solr APIs, due to insufficiently strict input validation in those components.\u0026nbsp; Only deployments that meet \u003cb\u003eall\u003c/b\u003e of the following criteria are impacted by this vulnerability:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eUse of Solr\u0027s \"RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin\"\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eA RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin config (see security.json) that specifies multiple \"roles\"\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eA RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin permission list (see security.json) that uses one or more of the following pre-defined permission rules: \"config-read\", \"config-edit\", \"schema-read\", \"metrics-read\", or \"security-read\".\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eA RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin permission list that \u003cb\u003edoesn\u0027t\u003c/b\u003e define the \"all\" pre-defined permission\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eA networking setup that allows clients to make unfiltered network requests to Solr. (i.e. user-submitted HTTP/HTTPS requests reach Solr as-is, unmodified or restricted by any intervening proxy or gateway)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003eUsers can mitigate this vulnerability by ensuring that their RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin configuration specifies the \"all\" pre-defined permission and associates the permission with an \"admin\" or other privileged role.\u0026nbsp; Users can also upgrade to a Solr version outside of the impacted range, such as the recently released Solr 9.10.1.\u0026nbsp;"
}
],
"value": "Deployments of Apache Solr 5.3.0 through 9.10.0 that rely on Solr\u0027s \"Rule Based Authorization Plugin\" are vulnerable to allowing unauthorized access to certain Solr APIs, due to insufficiently strict input validation in those components.\u00a0 Only deployments that meet all of the following criteria are impacted by this vulnerability:\n\n * Use of Solr\u0027s \"RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin\"\n * A RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin config (see security.json) that specifies multiple \"roles\"\n * A RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin permission list (see security.json) that uses one or more of the following pre-defined permission rules: \"config-read\", \"config-edit\", \"schema-read\", \"metrics-read\", or \"security-read\".\n * A RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin permission list that doesn\u0027t define the \"all\" pre-defined permission\n * A networking setup that allows clients to make unfiltered network requests to Solr. (i.e. user-submitted HTTP/HTTPS requests reach Solr as-is, unmodified or restricted by any intervening proxy or gateway)\n\nUsers can mitigate this vulnerability by ensuring that their RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin configuration specifies the \"all\" pre-defined permission and associates the permission with an \"admin\" or other privileged role.\u00a0 Users can also upgrade to a Solr version outside of the impacted range, such as the recently released Solr 9.10.1."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "moderate"
},
"type": "Textual description of severity"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285 Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-01-21T13:41:46.346Z",
"orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"shortName": "apache"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/d59hqbgo7p62myq7mgfpz7or8n1j7wbn"
}
],
"source": {
"defect": [
"SOLR-18054"
],
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Apache Solr: Unauthorized bypass of certain \"predefined permission\" rules in the RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"assignerShortName": "apache",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-22022",
"datePublished": "2026-01-21T13:41:46.346Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-01-05T20:52:03.246Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-01-21T15:35:07.116Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-21886 (GCVE-0-2026-21886)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-03-17 15:26 – Updated: 2026-03-17 16:09
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
OpenCTI's GraphQL Mutations Allow Deletion of Unrelated Entities
Summary
OpenCTI is an open source platform for managing cyber threat intelligence knowledge and observables. Prior to version 6.9.1, the GraphQL mutations "IndividualDeletionDeleteMutation" is intended to allow users to delete individual entity objects respectively. However, it was observed that this mutation can be misused to delete unrelated and sensitive objects such as analyses reports etc. This behavior stems from the lack of validation in the API to ensure that the targeted object is contextually related to the mutation being executed. Version 6.9.1 fixes the issue.
Severity
6.5 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-03-17 16:09 UTC
CWE
Assigner
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/OpenCTI-Platform/opencti/secur… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenCTI-Platform | opencti |
Affected:
< 6.9.1
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-21886",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-03-17T16:09:27.056285Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-03-17T16:09:31.748Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "opencti",
"vendor": "OpenCTI-Platform",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 6.9.1"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "OpenCTI is an open source platform for managing cyber threat intelligence knowledge and observables. Prior to version 6.9.1, the GraphQL mutations \"IndividualDeletionDeleteMutation\" is intended to allow users to delete individual entity objects respectively. However, it was observed that this mutation can be misused to delete unrelated and sensitive objects such as analyses reports etc. This behavior stems from the lack of validation in the API to ensure that the targeted object is contextually related to the mutation being executed. Version 6.9.1 fixes the issue."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285: Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-566",
"description": "CWE-566: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-915",
"description": "CWE-915: Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-03-17T15:26:30.757Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/OpenCTI-Platform/opencti/security/advisories/GHSA-mhmx-j75v-2m6x",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/OpenCTI-Platform/opencti/security/advisories/GHSA-mhmx-j75v-2m6x"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-mhmx-j75v-2m6x",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "OpenCTI\u0027s GraphQL Mutations Allow Deletion of Unrelated Entities"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-21886",
"datePublished": "2026-03-17T15:26:30.757Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-01-05T17:24:36.929Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-03-17T16:09:31.748Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-20960 (GCVE-0-2026-20960)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-01-16 21:28 – Updated: 2026-07-30 20:47
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
PowerApps Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Summary
Improper authorization in Microsoft Power Apps allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-01-16 21:49 UTC
CWE
- CWE-285 - Improper Authorization
Assigner
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerabi… | vendor-advisorypatch |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft | Microsoft Power Apps Desktop Client |
Affected:
1.0.0 , < 25121
(custom)
cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:power_apps_desktop_client:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
Date Public
2026-01-16 16:00
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-20960",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-01-16T21:49:22.024257Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-01-16T21:49:30.447Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "Microsoft Power Apps Desktop Client",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "25121",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.0.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:power_apps_desktop_client:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "25121",
"versionStartIncluding": "1.0.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-01-16T16:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "Improper authorization in Microsoft Power Apps allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 8,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:U/RL:O/RC:C",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285: Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-30T20:47:11.931Z",
"orgId": "f38d906d-7342-40ea-92c1-6c4a2c6478c8",
"shortName": "microsoft"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "PowerApps Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"patch"
],
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20960"
}
],
"title": "PowerApps Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f38d906d-7342-40ea-92c1-6c4a2c6478c8",
"assignerShortName": "microsoft",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-20960",
"datePublished": "2026-01-16T21:28:10.895Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-12-04T20:04:16.340Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-30T20:47:11.931Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
GCVE-1-2026-20327 (CVE-2026-112188)
Vulnerability from gna-1 – Published: 2026-10-19 09:22 – Updated: 2026-10-19 09:22
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
MISP Server Settings Lookup Exposes Sensitive Configuration Data via Branch Name Resolution
Summary
MISP contains a vulnerability in its server settings lookup mechanism that allows an authenticated user to retrieve sensitive configuration data that should have been redacted.
The settings lookup function resolves a dotted setting name to a node in the configuration tree. When a branch name (such as Security, MISP, or Plugin) is supplied instead of a specific leaf setting, the function returns the entire sub-tree. Because a branch node does not carry a redaction flag, the redaction check in the settings retrieval endpoint is bypassed, and the full branch contents are returned to the caller. This exposes sensitive values including the security salt, Redis connection passwords, and plugin API keys.
A second endpoint that edits server settings similarly reads the entire configuration store when a branch name is resolved, returning all settings to the caller.
The impact is disclosure of sensitive server configuration secrets to any user who can access the server settings endpoints.
Affected versions: <2.5.48.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: total
Supplier · CNA (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-19 09:21 UTC
CWE
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102 | patch |
Impacted products
GCVE extensions
AI-generated
Human-reviewed
Confidence: medium
Model
qwen3.8:27b
1 event
advisory
bcp-05-x-01bcp-05-x-02bcp-05-x-03
Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.
ai-computer-assisted:llm-generatedai-computer-assisted:classification
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-10-19 09:21 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102.patch
70885748c270… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
30b849102c68
|
fix: [settings] Server setting lookups address one setting, | 70885748c270… |
Fix summary
The settings lookup function now validates that the resolved node is a leaf setting (has a 'level' property and is not an array representing a branch). If the resolved node is a branch or otherwise does not represent a single setting, the function returns false, indicating an invalid setting. This prevents the redaction check from being bypassed and stops the endpoints from returning entire configuration branches containing sensitive values.
Patch summary
In app/Model/Server.php, the getSettingData() method previously checked only for the presence of a 'level' key before returning the setting. The patch adds a guard clause: if the resolved setting is an array (i.e., a branch/sub-tree) or lacks the 'level' key, the function immediately returns false. The existing logic for setting the name and resolving options is then applied only to confirmed leaf settings. This ensures callers that assumed a single-setting result never receive a multi-key branch.
CVSS rationale
AV:N: MISP is a network-accessible web application. AC:L: The attack requires only substituting a branch name for a leaf setting name in an existing API call; no race conditions or complex timing are needed. AT:N: No manipulation of the target environment is required. PR:L: The attacker needs an authenticated account with access to the server settings endpoints; the exact privilege level (admin vs. regular user) is not confirmed in the patch, so Low is assumed. UI:N: No victim interaction is required. VC:H: Sensitive secrets (security salt, Redis passwords, plugin API keys) are fully disclosed. VI:N, VA:N: No integrity or availability impact is evidenced. SC:N, SI:N, SA:N: No impact on subsequent components is indicated.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-200 The settings endpoint returned sensitive configuration values (security salt, Redis passwords, plugin API keys) to a caller who requested a branch name, bypassing the intended redaction mechanism. The data was exposed to an actor who should not have had access to those specific values.
- CWE-285 The redaction check, which serves as an authorization control for sensitive setting values, was effectively bypassed because branch nodes do not carry a redacted flag. The system failed to enforce the intended access restriction on sensitive configuration data.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-124 The attacker manipulates the setting name parameter supplied to the settings lookup endpoint, substituting a branch name (e.g., 'Security') for a leaf setting name. This causes the application to return a broader data set than intended. CAPEC-124 is the closest match because the core technique is altering a request parameter to change the application's response scope. The mapping is approximate because the parameter is not a traditional HTTP parameter but an application-level setting identifier; no CAPEC specifically covers configuration-tree traversal.
Assumptions to verify
- The exact privilege level required to access the server settings endpoints (admin vs. any authenticated user) is not stated in the patch; PR:L is assumed as the most conservative defensible value.
- The affected version boundary is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata (v2.5.48 with 11 commits after fix); the exact last affected version and first fixed version are not explicitly confirmed.
- CAPEC-124 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available attack pattern; no CAPEC specifically models configuration-tree branch traversal, so the mapping is approximate.
- The patch does not indicate whether unauthenticated access is possible; authentication is assumed based on the nature of server settings endpoints in MISP.
- The Co-Authored-By line references an AI tool (Claude Opus 5); it is listed as a tool credit rather than a human remediation developer.
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 |
7 | 11 | medium | 5 |
- 2026-09-28 10:03 UTC Fix developed Corrective change authored (30b849102c687bb53919f1d5d20851bc20fafa4e): fix: [settings] Server setting lookups address one setting, https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102.patch
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:misp:misp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"modules": [
"Server settings (app/Model/Server.php)"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Model/Server.php"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.48",
"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 Opus 5"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eMISP contains a vulnerability in its server settings lookup mechanism that allows an authenticated user to retrieve sensitive configuration data that should have been redacted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe settings lookup function resolves a dotted setting name to a node in the configuration tree. When a branch name (such as Security, MISP, or Plugin) is supplied instead of a specific leaf setting, the function returns the entire sub-tree. Because a branch node does not carry a redaction flag, the redaction check in the settings retrieval endpoint is bypassed, and the full branch contents are returned to the caller. This exposes sensitive values including the security salt, Redis connection passwords, and plugin API keys.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA second endpoint that edits server settings similarly reads the entire configuration store when a branch name is resolved, returning all settings to the caller.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe impact is disclosure of sensitive server configuration secrets to any user who can access the server settings endpoints.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAffected versions: \u0026lt;2.5.48.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "MISP contains a vulnerability in its server settings lookup mechanism that allows an authenticated user to retrieve sensitive configuration data that should have been redacted.\n\nThe settings lookup function resolves a dotted setting name to a node in the configuration tree. When a branch name (such as Security, MISP, or Plugin) is supplied instead of a specific leaf setting, the function returns the entire sub-tree. Because a branch node does not carry a redaction flag, the redaction check in the settings retrieval endpoint is bypassed, and the full branch contents are returned to the caller. This exposes sensitive values including the security salt, Redis connection passwords, and plugin API keys.\n\nA second endpoint that edits server settings similarly reads the entire configuration store when a branch name is resolved, returning all settings to the caller.\n\nThe impact is disclosure of sensitive server configuration secrets to any user who can access the server settings endpoints.\n\nAffected versions: \u003c2.5.48."
}
],
"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": 7.1,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"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:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"format": "SSVC",
"other": {
"content": {
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "Supplier",
"timestamp": "2026-10-19T09:21:00Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "SSVC"
},
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-200",
"description": "CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285 Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"orgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe settings lookup function now validates that the resolved node is a leaf setting (has a \u0027level\u0027 property and is not an array representing a branch). If the resolved node is a branch or otherwise does not represent a single setting, the function returns false, indicating an invalid setting. This prevents the redaction check from being bypassed and stops the endpoints from returning entire configuration branches containing sensitive values.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The settings lookup function now validates that the resolved node is a leaf setting (has a \u0027level\u0027 property and is not an array representing a branch). If the resolved node is a branch or otherwise does not represent a single setting, the function returns false, indicating an invalid setting. This prevents the redaction check from being bypassed and stops the endpoints from returning entire configuration branches containing sensitive values."
}
],
"title": "MISP Server Settings Lookup Exposes Sensitive Configuration Data via Branch Name Resolution",
"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 exact privilege level required to access the server settings endpoints (admin vs. any authenticated user) is not stated in the patch; PR:L is assumed as the most conservative defensible value.",
"The affected version boundary is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata (v2.5.48 with 11 commits after fix); the exact last affected version and first fixed version are not explicitly confirmed.",
"CAPEC-124 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available attack pattern; no CAPEC specifically models configuration-tree branch traversal, so the mapping is approximate.",
"The patch does not indicate whether unauthenticated access is possible; authentication is assumed based on the nature of server settings endpoints in MISP.",
"The Co-Authored-By line references an AI tool (Claude Opus 5); it is listed as a tool credit rather than a human remediation developer."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-124",
"rationale": "The attacker manipulates the setting name parameter supplied to the settings lookup endpoint, substituting a branch name (e.g., \u0027Security\u0027) for a leaf setting name. This causes the application to return a broader data set than intended. CAPEC-124 is the closest match because the core technique is altering a request parameter to change the application\u0027s response scope. The mapping is approximate because the parameter is not a traditional HTTP parameter but an application-level setting identifier; no CAPEC specifically covers configuration-tree traversal."
}
],
"commit": "30b849102c687bb53919f1d5d20851bc20fafa4e",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 5"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N: MISP is a network-accessible web application. AC:L: The attack requires only substituting a branch name for a leaf setting name in an existing API call; no race conditions or complex timing are needed. AT:N: No manipulation of the target environment is required. PR:L: The attacker needs an authenticated account with access to the server settings endpoints; the exact privilege level (admin vs. regular user) is not confirmed in the patch, so Low is assumed. UI:N: No victim interaction is required. VC:H: Sensitive secrets (security salt, Redis passwords, plugin API keys) are fully disclosed. VI:N, VA:N: No integrity or availability impact is evidenced. SC:N, SI:N, SA:N: No impact on subsequent components is indicated.",
"fixSummary": "The settings lookup function now validates that the resolved node is a leaf setting (has a \u0027level\u0027 property and is not an array representing a branch). If the resolved node is a branch or otherwise does not represent a single setting, the function returns false, indicating an invalid setting. This prevents the redaction check from being bypassed and stops the endpoints from returning entire configuration branches containing sensitive values.",
"generatedAt": "2026-10-19T09:21:00.388917Z",
"generator": "patch2vuln.py",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"modelComparison": {
"rankings": [
{
"agreementScore": 11,
"assumptionCount": 5,
"confidence": "medium",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"score": 7
}
],
"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": "70885748c270bb21036c46d9142ef00525834a5c03669c4c4a856d7db6ef58e2",
"patchSummary": "In app/Model/Server.php, the getSettingData() method previously checked only for the presence of a \u0027level\u0027 key before returning the setting. The patch adds a guard clause: if the resolved setting is an array (i.e., a branch/sub-tree) or lacks the \u0027level\u0027 key, the function immediately returns false. The existing logic for setting the name and resolving options is then applied only to confirmed leaf settings. This ensures callers that assumed a single-setting result never receive a multi-key branch.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "30b849102c687bb53919f1d5d20851bc20fafa4e",
"date": "Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:03:56 +0200",
"patchSha256": "70885748c270bb21036c46d9142ef00525834a5c03669c4c4a856d7db6ef58e2",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102.patch",
"subject": "fix: [settings] Server setting lookups address one setting,"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102.patch",
"ssvc": {
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "Supplier",
"timestamp": "2026-10-19T09:21:00Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"subject": "fix: [settings] Server setting lookups address one setting,",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 11,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.48",
"version": "2.5.48",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-200",
"rationale": "The settings endpoint returned sensitive configuration values (security salt, Redis passwords, plugin API keys) to a caller who requested a branch name, bypassing the intended redaction mechanism. The data was exposed to an actor who should not have had access to those specific values."
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"rationale": "The redaction check, which serves as an authorization control for sensitive setting values, was effectively bypassed because branch nodes do not carry a redacted flag. The system failed to enforce the intended access restriction on sensitive configuration data."
}
]
}
},
"bcp-05-x-03": {
"x_timeline": {
"events": [
{
"description": "Corrective change authored (30b849102c687bb53919f1d5d20851bc20fafa4e): fix: [settings] Server setting lookups address one setting,",
"id": "evt-fix-developed-1",
"references": [
"https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/30b849102.patch"
],
"timestamp": "2026-09-28T10:03:56Z",
"type": "fix-developed"
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20327"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-112188",
"datePublished": "2026-10-19T09:22:09.246572Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-10-19T09:22:31.139Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-19T09:22:32.658772Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20327"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2026-20286 (GCVE-0-2026-20286)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-16 20:24 – Updated: 2026-09-17 14:03
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Cisco Identity Services Engine Authorization Bypass Vulnerability
Summary
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Identify Services Engine (ISE) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to modify parts of the configuration on an affected device.
This vulnerability is due to the lack of server-side validation of Administrator permissions. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HTTP request to an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify descriptions of files on a specific page. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid Administrator credentials.
Severity
4.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-09-17 14:03 UTC
CWE
- CWE-285 - Improper Authorization
Assigner
References
1 reference
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cisco | Cisco Identity Services Engine Software |
Affected:
3.1.0
Affected: 3.1.0 p1 Affected: 3.1.0 p3 Affected: 3.1.0 p2 Affected: 3.2.0 Affected: 3.1.0 p4 Affected: 3.1.0 p5 Affected: 3.2.0 p1 Affected: 3.1.0 p6 Affected: 3.2.0 p2 Affected: 3.1.0 p7 Affected: 3.3.0 Affected: 3.2.0 p3 Affected: 3.2.0 p4 Affected: 3.1.0 p8 Affected: 3.2.0 p5 Affected: 3.2.0 p6 Affected: 3.1.0 p9 Affected: 3.3 Patch 2 Affected: 3.3 Patch 1 Affected: 3.3 Patch 3 Affected: 3.4.0 Affected: 3.2.0 p7 Affected: 3.3 Patch 4 Affected: 3.4 Patch 1 Affected: 3.1.0 p10 Affected: 3.3 Patch 5 Affected: 3.3 Patch 6 Affected: 3.4 Patch 2 Affected: 3.3 Patch 7 Affected: 3.4 Patch 3 Affected: 3.5.0 Affected: 3.4 Patch 4 Affected: 3.3 Patch 8 Affected: 3.2 Patch 8 Affected: 3.5 Patch 1 Affected: 3.3 Patch 9 Affected: 3.2 Patch 9 Affected: 3.4 Patch 5 Affected: 3.5 Patch 3 Affected: 3.5 Patch 2 Affected: 3.3 Patch 10 Affected: 3.3 Patch 11 Affected: 3.4 Patch 6 Affected: 3.2 Patch 10 Affected: 3.1.0 p72 Affected: 3.1.0 p11 Affected: 3.1.0 p12 Affected: 3.2 Patch 11 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-20286",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T14:03:14.178518Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-17T14:03:25.301Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unknown",
"product": "Cisco Identity Services Engine Software",
"vendor": "Cisco",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p8"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p9"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p10"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 8"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 8"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5 Patch 1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 9"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 9"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5 Patch 3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5 Patch 2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 10"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 11"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 10"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p72"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p11"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p12"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 11"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Identify Services Engine (ISE) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to modify parts of the configuration on an affected device.\r\n\r\nThis vulnerability is due to the lack of server-side validation of\u0026nbsp;Administrator\u0026nbsp;permissions. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HTTP request to an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify descriptions of files on a specific page. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid\u0026nbsp;Administrator credentials."
}
],
"exploits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "The Cisco PSIRT is not aware of any public announcements or malicious use of the vulnerabilities that are described in this advisory."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 4.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "cvssV3_1"
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "cwe"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-16T20:24:33.238Z",
"orgId": "d1c1063e-7a18-46af-9102-31f8928bc633",
"shortName": "cisco"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "cisco-sa-ise-auth-bypass-1-MxcTNgwx",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ise-auth-bypass-1-MxcTNgwx"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "cisco-sa-ise-auth-bypass-1-MxcTNgwx",
"defects": [
"CSCwt62644"
],
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Cisco Identity Services Engine Authorization Bypass Vulnerability"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "d1c1063e-7a18-46af-9102-31f8928bc633",
"assignerShortName": "cisco",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-20286",
"datePublished": "2026-09-16T20:24:33.238Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-10-08T11:59:15.404Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-17T14:03:25.301Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-20285 (GCVE-0-2026-20285)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-16 20:24 – Updated: 2026-09-18 14:45
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Cisco Identity Services Engine Authorization Bypass Vulnerability
Summary
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Cisco ISE Passive Identity Connector (ISE-PIC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to modify parts of the configuration on an affected device.
This vulnerability is due to the lack of server-side validation of Administrator permissions. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HTTP request to an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify descriptions of files on a specific page. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid Administrator credentials.
Severity
4.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-09-18 14:36 UTC
CWE
- CWE-285 - Improper Authorization
Assigner
References
1 reference
Impacted products
2 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cisco | Cisco Identity Services Engine Software |
Affected:
3.1.0
Affected: 3.1.0 p1 Affected: 3.1.0 p3 Affected: 3.1.0 p2 Affected: 3.2.0 Affected: 3.1.0 p4 Affected: 3.1.0 p5 Affected: 3.2.0 p1 Affected: 3.1.0 p6 Affected: 3.2.0 p2 Affected: 3.1.0 p7 Affected: 3.3.0 Affected: 3.2.0 p3 Affected: 3.2.0 p4 Affected: 3.1.0 p8 Affected: 3.2.0 p5 Affected: 3.2.0 p6 Affected: 3.1.0 p9 Affected: 3.3 Patch 2 Affected: 3.3 Patch 1 Affected: 3.3 Patch 3 Affected: 3.4.0 Affected: 3.2.0 p7 Affected: 3.3 Patch 4 Affected: 3.4 Patch 1 Affected: 3.1.0 p10 Affected: 3.3 Patch 5 Affected: 3.3 Patch 6 Affected: 3.4 Patch 2 Affected: 3.3 Patch 7 Affected: 3.4 Patch 3 Affected: 3.5.0 Affected: 3.4 Patch 4 Affected: 3.3 Patch 8 Affected: 3.2 Patch 8 Affected: 3.5 Patch 1 Affected: 3.3 Patch 9 Affected: 3.2 Patch 9 Affected: 3.4 Patch 5 Affected: 3.5 Patch 3 Affected: 3.5 Patch 2 Affected: 3.3 Patch 10 Affected: 3.3 Patch 11 Affected: 3.4 Patch 6 Affected: 3.2 Patch 10 Affected: 3.1.0 p72 Affected: 3.1.0 p11 Affected: 3.1.0 p12 Affected: 3.2 Patch 11 |
|
| Cisco | Cisco ISE Passive Identity Connector |
Affected:
3.2.0
Affected: 3.1.0 Affected: 3.3.0 Affected: 3.4.0 Affected: 3.5.0 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-20285",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-18T14:36:31.335011Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-18T14:45:31.111Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unknown",
"product": "Cisco Identity Services Engine Software",
"vendor": "Cisco",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p8"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p9"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0 p7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p10"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 4"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 8"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 8"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5 Patch 1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 9"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 9"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5 Patch 3"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5 Patch 2"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 10"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3 Patch 11"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4 Patch 6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 10"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p72"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p11"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0 p12"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2 Patch 11"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "unknown",
"product": "Cisco ISE Passive Identity Connector",
"vendor": "Cisco",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.2.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.1.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Cisco ISE Passive Identity Connector (ISE-PIC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to modify parts of the configuration on an affected device.\r\n\r\nThis vulnerability is due to the lack of server-side validation of\u0026nbsp;Administrator\u0026nbsp;permissions. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HTTP request to an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify descriptions of files on a specific page. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid\u0026nbsp;Administrator credentials."
}
],
"exploits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "The Cisco PSIRT is not aware of any public announcements or malicious use of the vulnerabilities that are described in this advisory."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 4.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "cvssV3_1"
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "cwe"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-16T20:24:35.392Z",
"orgId": "d1c1063e-7a18-46af-9102-31f8928bc633",
"shortName": "cisco"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "cisco-sa-ise-auth-bypass-1-MxcTNgwx",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ise-auth-bypass-1-MxcTNgwx"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "cisco-sa-ise-auth-bypass-1-MxcTNgwx",
"defects": [
"CSCwt62639"
],
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Cisco Identity Services Engine Authorization Bypass Vulnerability"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "d1c1063e-7a18-46af-9102-31f8928bc633",
"assignerShortName": "cisco",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-20285",
"datePublished": "2026-09-16T20:24:35.392Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-10-08T11:59:15.404Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-18T14:45:31.111Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
GCVE-1-2026-20271 (CVE-2026-95671)
Vulnerability from gna-1 – Published: 2026-09-22 13:20 – Updated: 2026-09-22 13:20
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
MISP Collections: Missing Authorization Check for Sharing Group on PUT Request in collections/add
Summary
In MISP, the CollectionsController add() method enforced the sharing-group usability authorization check and element capture only when the HTTP request method was POST. However, the underlying CRUDComponent::add() method persists data on both POST and PUT requests. As a result, an authenticated user could issue a PUT request to the collections/add endpoint, bypassing the sharing-group authorization check entirely. This allowed the creation of a collection with distribution=4 (shared with a specific sharing group) targeting a sharing group that the user was not authorized to use. The bypassed check would normally verify that the current user has access to the specified sharing group before allowing the collection to be associated with it.
The security impact is that an authenticated user can place collection data into a sharing group context they do not have legitimate access to, potentially exposing that data to all members of the unauthorized sharing group and violating the intended access-control boundaries of the MISP instance.
The vulnerability requires an authenticated session and knowledge of a valid sharing group identifier; no user interaction or special tooling is needed beyond sending a PUT request instead of a POST request to the same endpoint.
Severity
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/c20f5a836 | patch |
GCVE extensions
AI-generated
Human-reviewed
Confidence: medium
Model
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.
ai-computer-assisted:llm-generatedai-computer-assisted:classification
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-09-22 13:13 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/c20f5a836.patch
a49bc540d446… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
c20f5a83621d
|
fix: [security] Authorise the collection sharing group on PUT | a49bc540d446… |
Fix summary
The authorization guard in CollectionsController::add() was extended to cover PUT requests in addition to POST requests. The sharing-group usability check (which validates that the current user can use the target sharing group) and the element capture logic now execute regardless of whether the request arrives as POST or PUT, ensuring that CRUDComponent::add() cannot persist a collection with an unauthorized sharing group via either HTTP verb.
Patch summary
In app/Controller/CollectionsController.php, the condition guarding the sharing-group authorization check and element capture was changed from 'if ($this->request->is('post'))' to 'if ($this->request->is('post') || $this->request->is('put'))'. A comment was added explaining that CRUDComponent::add() persists on either verb, so the guard must cover both. Four lines inserted, one line deleted in total.
CVSS rationale
AV:N - MISP is a web application accessible over the network. AC:L - The attack requires only changing the HTTP method from POST to PUT; no race conditions, complex payloads, or special conditions are needed. AT:N - No attack target manipulation is required. PR:L - An authenticated MISP user is required; the vulnerability is in the authorization layer, not authentication. UI:N - No victim interaction is needed. VC:N - The primary data in the collection is user-created; the vulnerability does not directly expose other users' data to the attacker. VI:L - The attacker can create a collection in a sharing group they are not authorized to use, violating the integrity of the sharing-group access model. VA:N - No availability impact. SC:N - No secondary confidentiality impact identified. SI:L - Secondary integrity impact: data is placed in an unauthorized sharing-group context, potentially visible to that group's members. SA:N - No secondary availability impact.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-862 The sharing-group usability authorization check was present for POST but entirely absent for PUT requests to the same endpoint. The authorization logic was not missing in design; it was simply not applied to one of the HTTP methods that triggers the same persistence path, resulting in a missing authorization enforcement for PUT.
- CWE-285 The application performed an authorization check (sharing-group usability) but applied it conditionally based on the HTTP method, allowing an attacker to bypass the check by selecting a different method. This is an improper authorization implementation where the check is not consistently enforced across all code paths that lead to the sensitive operation.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-114 The attacker manipulates the HTTP method parameter (changing POST to PUT) to bypass the authorization check that is keyed on the method. The HTTP method acts as a routing parameter that the application uses to decide whether to enforce authorization; tampering with it causes the check to be skipped. This is the closest CAPEC to the observed bypass technique, though the pattern is more specifically an authorization bypass via method selection rather than classic parameter tampering. Uncertainty: no CAPEC specifically covers 'bypassing authorization by altering the HTTP verb'; CAPEC-114 is the best available match.
Assumptions to verify
- The affected version boundary is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata (v2.5.47 with 54 commits after fix); the exact last affected version and first fixed version are not explicitly stated in the patch and may differ.
- The CVSS assumes the primary impact is integrity (unauthorized placement of data in a sharing group) rather than confidentiality, since the data in the collection is user-created. If the collection grants read access to other data in the sharing group, the confidentiality impact could be higher.
- CAPEC-114 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available CAPEC for bypassing an authorization check by altering the HTTP method; no CAPEC specifically models HTTP-verb-based authorization bypass.
- The patch does not include version tags or release notes; affected version ranges are approximate.
- The Co-Authored-By line references an AI assistant (Claude Opus 4.8); it is credited as a tool rather than a human remediation developer.
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": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"modules": [
"CollectionsController"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Controller/CollectionsController.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"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 4.8"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eIn MISP, the CollectionsController add() method enforced the sharing-group usability authorization check and element capture only when the HTTP request method was POST. However, the underlying CRUDComponent::add() method persists data on both POST and PUT requests. As a result, an authenticated user could issue a PUT request to the collections/add endpoint, bypassing the sharing-group authorization check entirely. This allowed the creation of a collection with distribution=4 (shared with a specific sharing group) targeting a sharing group that the user was not authorized to use. The bypassed check would normally verify that the current user has access to the specified sharing group before allowing the collection to be associated with it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe security impact is that an authenticated user can place collection data into a sharing group context they do not have legitimate access to, potentially exposing that data to all members of the unauthorized sharing group and violating the intended access-control boundaries of the MISP instance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe vulnerability requires an authenticated session and knowledge of a valid sharing group identifier; no user interaction or special tooling is needed beyond sending a PUT request instead of a POST request to the same endpoint.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "In MISP, the CollectionsController add() method enforced the sharing-group usability authorization check and element capture only when the HTTP request method was POST. However, the underlying CRUDComponent::add() method persists data on both POST and PUT requests. As a result, an authenticated user could issue a PUT request to the collections/add endpoint, bypassing the sharing-group authorization check entirely. This allowed the creation of a collection with distribution=4 (shared with a specific sharing group) targeting a sharing group that the user was not authorized to use. The bypassed check would normally verify that the current user has access to the specified sharing group before allowing the collection to be associated with it.\n\nThe security impact is that an authenticated user can place collection data into a sharing group context they do not have legitimate access to, potentially exposing that data to all members of the unauthorized sharing group and violating the intended access-control boundaries of the MISP instance.\n\nThe vulnerability requires an authenticated session and knowledge of a valid sharing group identifier; no user interaction or special tooling is needed beyond sending a PUT request instead of a POST request to the same endpoint."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-114",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-114 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": "LOW",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-862",
"description": "CWE-862 Missing Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285 Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"orgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/c20f5a836"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe authorization guard in CollectionsController::add() was extended to cover PUT requests in addition to POST requests. The sharing-group usability check (which validates that the current user can use the target sharing group) and the element capture logic now execute regardless of whether the request arrives as POST or PUT, ensuring that CRUDComponent::add() cannot persist a collection with an unauthorized sharing group via either HTTP verb.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The authorization guard in CollectionsController::add() was extended to cover PUT requests in addition to POST requests. The sharing-group usability check (which validates that the current user can use the target sharing group) and the element capture logic now execute regardless of whether the request arrives as POST or PUT, ensuring that CRUDComponent::add() cannot persist a collection with an unauthorized sharing group via either HTTP verb."
}
],
"title": "MISP Collections: Missing Authorization Check for Sharing Group on PUT Request in collections/add",
"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 boundary is inferred from the tag_version_boundary metadata (v2.5.47 with 54 commits after fix); the exact last affected version and first fixed version are not explicitly stated in the patch and may differ.",
"The CVSS assumes the primary impact is integrity (unauthorized placement of data in a sharing group) rather than confidentiality, since the data in the collection is user-created. If the collection grants read access to other data in the sharing group, the confidentiality impact could be higher.",
"CAPEC-114 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available CAPEC for bypassing an authorization check by altering the HTTP method; no CAPEC specifically models HTTP-verb-based authorization bypass.",
"The patch does not include version tags or release notes; affected version ranges are approximate.",
"The Co-Authored-By line references an AI assistant (Claude Opus 4.8); it is credited as a tool rather than a human remediation developer."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-114",
"rationale": "The attacker manipulates the HTTP method parameter (changing POST to PUT) to bypass the authorization check that is keyed on the method. The HTTP method acts as a routing parameter that the application uses to decide whether to enforce authorization; tampering with it causes the check to be skipped. This is the closest CAPEC to the observed bypass technique, though the pattern is more specifically an authorization bypass via method selection rather than classic parameter tampering. Uncertainty: no CAPEC specifically covers \u0027bypassing authorization by altering the HTTP verb\u0027; CAPEC-114 is the best available match."
}
],
"commit": "c20f5a83621de6c534847e1728a1f5af843079b7",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Jeroen Pinoy"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 4.8"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N - MISP is a web application accessible over the network. AC:L - The attack requires only changing the HTTP method from POST to PUT; no race conditions, complex payloads, or special conditions are needed. AT:N - No attack target manipulation is required. PR:L - An authenticated MISP user is required; the vulnerability is in the authorization layer, not authentication. UI:N - No victim interaction is needed. VC:N - The primary data in the collection is user-created; the vulnerability does not directly expose other users\u0027 data to the attacker. VI:L - The attacker can create a collection in a sharing group they are not authorized to use, violating the integrity of the sharing-group access model. VA:N - No availability impact. SC:N - No secondary confidentiality impact identified. SI:L - Secondary integrity impact: data is placed in an unauthorized sharing-group context, potentially visible to that group\u0027s members. SA:N - No secondary availability impact.",
"fixSummary": "The authorization guard in CollectionsController::add() was extended to cover PUT requests in addition to POST requests. The sharing-group usability check (which validates that the current user can use the target sharing group) and the element capture logic now execute regardless of whether the request arrives as POST or PUT, ensuring that CRUDComponent::add() cannot persist a collection with an unauthorized sharing group via either HTTP verb.",
"generatedAt": "2026-09-22T13:13:03.522587Z",
"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": "a49bc540d4465370f1ecbf71f09c9aa51e3a77f3c196f60ddea7210f17f8b1a7",
"patchSummary": "In app/Controller/CollectionsController.php, the condition guarding the sharing-group authorization check and element capture was changed from \u0027if ($this-\u003erequest-\u003eis(\u0027post\u0027))\u0027 to \u0027if ($this-\u003erequest-\u003eis(\u0027post\u0027) || $this-\u003erequest-\u003eis(\u0027put\u0027))\u0027. A comment was added explaining that CRUDComponent::add() persists on either verb, so the guard must cover both. Four lines inserted, one line deleted in total.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "c20f5a83621de6c534847e1728a1f5af843079b7",
"patchSha256": "a49bc540d4465370f1ecbf71f09c9aa51e3a77f3c196f60ddea7210f17f8b1a7",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/c20f5a836.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/c20f5a836.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Authorise the collection sharing group on PUT"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/c20f5a836.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Authorise the collection sharing group on PUT",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 54,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.47",
"version": "2.5.47",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-862",
"rationale": "The sharing-group usability authorization check was present for POST but entirely absent for PUT requests to the same endpoint. The authorization logic was not missing in design; it was simply not applied to one of the HTTP methods that triggers the same persistence path, resulting in a missing authorization enforcement for PUT."
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"rationale": "The application performed an authorization check (sharing-group usability) but applied it conditionally based on the HTTP method, allowing an attacker to bypass the check by selecting a different method. This is an improper authorization implementation where the check is not consistently enforced across all code paths that lead to the sensitive operation."
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20271"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-95671",
"datePublished": "2026-09-22T13:20:11.113764Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T13:20:20.466Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T13:20:21.459826Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20271"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
GCVE-1-2026-20257 (CVE-2026-103659)
Vulnerability from gna-1 – Published: 2026-10-01 08:32 – Updated: 2026-10-01 08:33
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
MISP: Object Distribution ACL Bypass via Event Flattening Exposes Organisation-Only Attributes
Summary
MISP contains an authorization bypass in the event flattening feature. When a user requests an event with the flatten option enabled, the application removes the Object containment from the query and returns object attributes as top-level event attributes. In doing so, the object-level distribution and sharing-group access control check was not re-applied to those attributes.
As a result, a user who can view a community-distributed event could retrieve attributes belonging to organisation-only objects (distribution level 0) or objects restricted to a specific sharing group, even though the user's organisation does not have access to those objects. This constitutes an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive threat intelligence data.
A secondary issue was introduced by the initial remediation: the fix reused the full Object contain conditions (including soft-delete state) as the gate for flattened attributes, causing an event owner requesting deleted attributes to lose all attributes whose parent object was still live. The final fix isolates the distribution ACL condition as the sole gate.
Preconditions:
- An authenticated user with access to a community-distributed event
- The event contains at least one object with a distribution level or sharing group that restricts access beyond the event's own distribution
Impact:
- Unauthorized disclosure of attributes belonging to restricted objects
- Potential exposure of organisation-specific threat intelligence to other organisations
Affected versions: <2.5.48
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
Supplier · CNA (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-01 08:10 UTC
References
2 references
Impacted products
GCVE extensions
AI-generated
Human-reviewed
Confidence: medium
Model
qwen3.8:27b
2 events
advisory
bcp-05-x-01bcp-05-x-02bcp-05-x-03
Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.
ai-computer-assisted:llm-generatedai-computer-assisted:classification
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-10-01 08:10 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
patch set (2 sources)
e74b42214be0… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
ab08edf9256b
|
fix: [security] Apply the object ACL to flattened attributes | ebc10168f16d… |
07f3486d50f2
|
fix: [event] Gate flattened attributes on the object ACL | 18601512c29d… |
Fix summary
The fix re-applies the object distribution and sharing-group ACL as a subquery condition on the Attribute.object_id field whenever the flatten option is active. This ensures that attributes belonging to objects the caller is not authorized to see are excluded from the flattened result set. The second commit refines the gate to use only the distribution ACL condition (correlated on Object.id) rather than the entire Object contain, preventing soft-delete state from incorrectly filtering attributes for the event owner.
Patch summary
In app/Model/Event.php, two code paths were modified. In fetchPaginatedAttributes(), a new subquery is generated against the Object table using the distribution and sharing-group ACL conditions, and an OR condition is added to the attribute query: either Attribute.object_id = 0 (top-level attribute) or the attribute's object passes the ACL. In fetchEvent(), when flatten is true and the user is not a site admin, a similar subquery is injected into the Attribute contain conditions. The second commit refactors the ACL condition into a standalone variable ($objectAclCondition) and uses only that condition (plus Object.id = Attribute.object_id) in the subquery, removing the soft-delete and other contain conditions that were incorrectly included. A regression test class (FlattenedObjectAcl) in tests/testregressions.py verifies: (1) an outsider cannot see organisation-only object attributes via flatten, (2) the owner retains soft-deleted attributes of a live object, and (3) the outsider cannot see another org's soft
CVSS rationale
AV:N - exploited over the network via the MISP REST API. AC:L - the attack is a simple API request with the flatten parameter; no race conditions or complex setup required. AT:N - no special target-side conditions beyond the existence of a community event with restricted objects. PR:L - requires an authenticated user with at least read access to the community event. UI:N - no user interaction needed; the API call is self-contained. VC:H - sensitive threat-intelligence attributes from organisation-only objects are fully exposed to unauthorized users. VI:N, VA:N - no integrity or availability impact on the vulnerable component. SC:N, SI:N, SA:N - no impact on subsequent components; the data resides within the same application.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-862 The flattening code path removed the Object contain (which enforced distribution and sharing-group ACLs) without re-applying an equivalent authorization check on the resulting top-level attributes. The object-level access control was simply absent from the flattened query, allowing unauthorized data access.
- CWE-285 The authorization decision for object attributes was based solely on the event-level distribution rather than the object-level distribution and sharing group. This is an improper authorization check that grants broader access than intended.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-126 The attacker (a legitimate user with access to a community event) exploits the fact that the application's privilege/access-control enforcement is incorrectly adjusted during the flatten operation. The object-level ACL is not applied, effectively elevating the user's data access beyond their intended scope. This is the closest CAPEC pattern to an authorization bypass where the application fails to enforce a narrower access control in a specific code path. Uncertainty: no CAPEC pattern specifically describes 'missing per-object ACL in a flattened view'; CAPEC-126 is the best available match for privilege/access-control bypass.
Assumptions to verify
- The affected version range is unspecified; the patch does not include version tags or release boundaries. All MISP versions prior to the fix commit are assumed affected.
- The CVSS PR:L assumes the attacker needs at minimum a read-access role on the community event; no evidence supports a lower or higher privilege requirement.
- The CAPEC-126 mapping is the closest available pattern; no CAPEC specifically describes a missing per-object ACL in a flattened API response. The mapping is approximate.
- The second commit (soft-delete fix) is treated as part of the same vulnerability remediation per the patch-set assumption, though it addresses a regression introduced by the first fix rather than the original authorization bypass.
- AI co-authors (Claude Opus 4.8, Claude Opus 5) are listed in commit metadata but are not included as advisory credits as they are tooling, not human contributors.
- No evidence of active exploitation, public PoC, or in-the-wild abuse was found in the supplied data.
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 | 11 | medium | 6 |
- 2026-09-23 07:25 UTC Fix developed Corrective change authored (ab08edf9256bb3c9c8a382e0778ecd10b9e29c7c): fix: [security] Apply the object ACL to flattened attributes https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ab08edf92.patch
- 2026-09-28 11:41 UTC Fix developed Corrective change authored (07f3486d50f2a5ee0f31ea66c920692664397ddb): fix: [event] Gate flattened attributes on the object ACL https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/07f3486d5.patch
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:misp:misp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"modules": [
"Event model (app/Model/Event.php)"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Model/Event.php"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.48",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Wenhao Wu"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 4.8"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 5"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eMISP contains an authorization bypass in the event flattening feature. When a user requests an event with the flatten option enabled, the application removes the Object containment from the query and returns object attributes as top-level event attributes. In doing so, the object-level distribution and sharing-group access control check was not re-applied to those attributes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a result, a user who can view a community-distributed event could retrieve attributes belonging to organisation-only objects (distribution level 0) or objects restricted to a specific sharing group, even though the user\u0027s organisation does not have access to those objects. This constitutes an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive threat intelligence data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA secondary issue was introduced by the initial remediation: the fix reused the full Object contain conditions (including soft-delete state) as the gate for flattened attributes, causing an event owner requesting deleted attributes to lose all attributes whose parent object was still live. The final fix isolates the distribution ACL condition as the sole gate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePreconditions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- An authenticated user with access to a community-distributed event\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- The event contains at least one object with a distribution level or sharing group that restricts access beyond the event\u0027s own distribution\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImpact:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Unauthorized disclosure of attributes belonging to restricted objects\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Potential exposure of organisation-specific threat intelligence to other organisations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAffected versions: \u0026lt;2.5.48\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "MISP contains an authorization bypass in the event flattening feature. When a user requests an event with the flatten option enabled, the application removes the Object containment from the query and returns object attributes as top-level event attributes. In doing so, the object-level distribution and sharing-group access control check was not re-applied to those attributes.\n\nAs a result, a user who can view a community-distributed event could retrieve attributes belonging to organisation-only objects (distribution level 0) or objects restricted to a specific sharing group, even though the user\u0027s organisation does not have access to those objects. This constitutes an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive threat intelligence data.\n\nA secondary issue was introduced by the initial remediation: the fix reused the full Object contain conditions (including soft-delete state) as the gate for flattened attributes, causing an event owner requesting deleted attributes to lose all attributes whose parent object was still live. The final fix isolates the distribution ACL condition as the sole gate.\n\nPreconditions:\n\n- An authenticated user with access to a community-distributed event\n\n- The event contains at least one object with a distribution level or sharing group that restricts access beyond the event\u0027s own distribution\n\nImpact:\n\n- Unauthorized disclosure of attributes belonging to restricted objects\n\n- Potential exposure of organisation-specific threat intelligence to other organisations\n\nAffected versions: \u003c2.5.48"
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-126",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-126 Exploiting Incorrectly Adjusted Privileges"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 7.1,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"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:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"format": "SSVC",
"other": {
"content": {
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "Supplier",
"timestamp": "2026-10-01T08:10:59Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "SSVC"
},
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-862",
"description": "CWE-862 Missing Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285 Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"orgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ab08edf92"
},
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/07f3486d5"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe fix re-applies the object distribution and sharing-group ACL as a subquery condition on the Attribute.object_id field whenever the flatten option is active. This ensures that attributes belonging to objects the caller is not authorized to see are excluded from the flattened result set. The second commit refines the gate to use only the distribution ACL condition (correlated on Object.id) rather than the entire Object contain, preventing soft-delete state from incorrectly filtering attributes for the event owner.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix re-applies the object distribution and sharing-group ACL as a subquery condition on the Attribute.object_id field whenever the flatten option is active. This ensures that attributes belonging to objects the caller is not authorized to see are excluded from the flattened result set. The second commit refines the gate to use only the distribution ACL condition (correlated on Object.id) rather than the entire Object contain, preventing soft-delete state from incorrectly filtering attributes for the event owner."
}
],
"title": "MISP: Object Distribution ACL Bypass via Event Flattening Exposes Organisation-Only Attributes",
"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 unspecified; the patch does not include version tags or release boundaries. All MISP versions prior to the fix commit are assumed affected.",
"The CVSS PR:L assumes the attacker needs at minimum a read-access role on the community event; no evidence supports a lower or higher privilege requirement.",
"The CAPEC-126 mapping is the closest available pattern; no CAPEC specifically describes a missing per-object ACL in a flattened API response. The mapping is approximate.",
"The second commit (soft-delete fix) is treated as part of the same vulnerability remediation per the patch-set assumption, though it addresses a regression introduced by the first fix rather than the original authorization bypass.",
"AI co-authors (Claude Opus 4.8, Claude Opus 5) are listed in commit metadata but are not included as advisory credits as they are tooling, not human contributors.",
"No evidence of active exploitation, public PoC, or in-the-wild abuse was found in the supplied data."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-126",
"rationale": "The attacker (a legitimate user with access to a community event) exploits the fact that the application\u0027s privilege/access-control enforcement is incorrectly adjusted during the flatten operation. The object-level ACL is not applied, effectively elevating the user\u0027s data access beyond their intended scope. This is the closest CAPEC pattern to an authorization bypass where the application fails to enforce a narrower access control in a specific code path. Uncertainty: no CAPEC pattern specifically describes \u0027missing per-object ACL in a flattened view\u0027; CAPEC-126 is the best available match for privilege/access-control bypass."
}
],
"commit": "07f3486d50f2a5ee0f31ea66c920692664397ddb",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Wenhao Wu"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 4.8"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 5"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N - exploited over the network via the MISP REST API. AC:L - the attack is a simple API request with the flatten parameter; no race conditions or complex setup required. AT:N - no special target-side conditions beyond the existence of a community event with restricted objects. PR:L - requires an authenticated user with at least read access to the community event. UI:N - no user interaction needed; the API call is self-contained. VC:H - sensitive threat-intelligence attributes from organisation-only objects are fully exposed to unauthorized users. VI:N, VA:N - no integrity or availability impact on the vulnerable component. SC:N, SI:N, SA:N - no impact on subsequent components; the data resides within the same application.",
"fixSummary": "The fix re-applies the object distribution and sharing-group ACL as a subquery condition on the Attribute.object_id field whenever the flatten option is active. This ensures that attributes belonging to objects the caller is not authorized to see are excluded from the flattened result set. The second commit refines the gate to use only the distribution ACL condition (correlated on Object.id) rather than the entire Object contain, preventing soft-delete state from incorrectly filtering attributes for the event owner.",
"generatedAt": "2026-10-01T08:10:59.855811Z",
"generator": "patch2vuln.py",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"modelComparison": {
"rankings": [
{
"agreementScore": 11,
"assumptionCount": 6,
"confidence": "medium",
"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": "e74b42214be094a3c715d859dd20b9ecd7091d30a187ab4583a7ec0f070c0581",
"patchSummary": "In app/Model/Event.php, two code paths were modified. In fetchPaginatedAttributes(), a new subquery is generated against the Object table using the distribution and sharing-group ACL conditions, and an OR condition is added to the attribute query: either Attribute.object_id = 0 (top-level attribute) or the attribute\u0027s object passes the ACL. In fetchEvent(), when flatten is true and the user is not a site admin, a similar subquery is injected into the Attribute contain conditions. The second commit refactors the ACL condition into a standalone variable ($objectAclCondition) and uses only that condition (plus Object.id = Attribute.object_id) in the subquery, removing the soft-delete and other contain conditions that were incorrectly included. A regression test class (FlattenedObjectAcl) in tests/testregressions.py verifies: (1) an outsider cannot see organisation-only object attributes via flatten, (2) the owner retains soft-deleted attributes of a live object, and (3) the outsider cannot see another org\u0027s soft",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "ab08edf9256bb3c9c8a382e0778ecd10b9e29c7c",
"date": "Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:25:31 +0200",
"patchSha256": "ebc10168f16d00a458d924a62fe76e00277217c8449c694eeb4442d6d3a724a0",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ab08edf92.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ab08edf92.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Apply the object ACL to flattened attributes"
},
{
"commit": "07f3486d50f2a5ee0f31ea66c920692664397ddb",
"date": "Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:41:23 +0200",
"patchSha256": "18601512c29df510bfdc629de713cffd41af868e7d230374aa346c92829e40de",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/07f3486d5.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/07f3486d5.patch",
"subject": "fix: [event] Gate flattened attributes on the object ACL"
}
],
"source": "patch set (2 sources)",
"ssvc": {
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "Supplier",
"timestamp": "2026-10-01T08:10:59Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"subject": "fix: [event] Gate flattened attributes on the object ACL",
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-862",
"rationale": "The flattening code path removed the Object contain (which enforced distribution and sharing-group ACLs) without re-applying an equivalent authorization check on the resulting top-level attributes. The object-level access control was simply absent from the flattened query, allowing unauthorized data access."
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"rationale": "The authorization decision for object attributes was based solely on the event-level distribution rather than the object-level distribution and sharing group. This is an improper authorization check that grants broader access than intended."
}
]
}
},
"bcp-05-x-03": {
"x_timeline": {
"events": [
{
"description": "Corrective change authored (ab08edf9256bb3c9c8a382e0778ecd10b9e29c7c): fix: [security] Apply the object ACL to flattened attributes",
"id": "evt-fix-developed-1",
"references": [
"https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/ab08edf92.patch"
],
"timestamp": "2026-09-23T07:25:31Z",
"type": "fix-developed"
},
{
"description": "Corrective change authored (07f3486d50f2a5ee0f31ea66c920692664397ddb): fix: [event] Gate flattened attributes on the object ACL",
"id": "evt-fix-developed-2",
"references": [
"https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/07f3486d5.patch"
],
"timestamp": "2026-09-28T11:41:23Z",
"type": "fix-developed"
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20257"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-103659",
"datePublished": "2026-10-01T08:32:55.873922Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-10-01T08:33:03.219Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-01T08:33:03.298255Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20257"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
GCVE-1-2026-20244 (CVE-2026-103858)
Vulnerability from gna-1 – Published: 2026-10-01 11:31 – Updated: 2026-10-01 11:31
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
MISP Incomplete Thread Authorization Allows Unauthorized Read and Post Access to Discussions
Summary
MISP contains an incomplete authorization check in the discussion posting functionality. When a user submits a post to a thread or replies to an existing post, the application only verified whether the target thread was restricted to a single organization (org-only distribution). It did not enforce the full thread access control list, including sharing-group membership and event-level visibility.
As a result, an authenticated user who is outside the relevant sharing group or who does not have visibility on the associated event could:
- Read the thread title and the content of the quoted post
- Submit a new post into the discussion thread
This constitutes both an information disclosure (reading restricted thread and post content) and an integrity issue (injecting content into a thread the user is not authorized to participate in).
Affected: <2.5.48
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
Supplier · CNA (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-01 11:16 UTC
CWE
- CWE-285 - Improper Authorization
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75 | patch |
Impacted products
GCVE extensions
AI-generated
Human-reviewed
Confidence: medium
Model
qwen3.8:27b
1 event
advisory
bcp-05-x-01bcp-05-x-02bcp-05-x-03
Draft vulnerability metadata was generated from a git-format patch using an Ollama-hosted language model. Human validation is required before publication.
ai-computer-assisted:llm-generatedai-computer-assisted:classification
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-10-01 11:16 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75.patch
04551eba9b01… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
79fbd4c7580a
|
fix: [security] Apply the thread ACL when posting to a | 04551eba9b01… |
Fix summary
The fix replaces the limited org-only distribution check with a call to the thread's full authorization method (checkIfAuthorised), which enforces the complete access control list including sharing groups and event-level visibility. The thread is only read after successful authorization, preventing disclosure of the title and content to unauthorized users. An additional null-check on the post's thread_id was added to prevent referencing posts without a valid thread association.
Patch summary
In PostsController.php add() method: (1) For the 'thread' target case, replaced the inline distribution==0 and org_id comparison with a call to Thread->checkIfAuthorised() before reading the thread; removed the separate _isSiteAdmin() bypass. (2) For the 'post' target case, added a check that the post has a non-empty thread_id, replaced the same limited distribution/org check with Thread->checkIfAuthorised(), and reordered the thread read to occur after the authorization check. Net: 8 insertions, 12 deletions in one file.
CVSS rationale
AV:N: web application accessible over network. AC:L: attacker only needs a valid thread_id or post_id, no race conditions or special timing. AT:N: no special attack prerequisites beyond authentication. PR:L: requires an authenticated MISP user account. UI:N: no victim interaction needed; the attacker directly issues the request. VC:L: attacker can read thread titles and quoted post content they should not see. VI:L: attacker can inject posts into unauthorized threads. VA:N: no availability impact. SC/SI/SA:N: no impact on subsequent components. The impact is bounded to the MISP instance's data and does not compromise the server or other systems.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-285 The authorization check was present but incomplete: it only verified org-level distribution (distribution==0) and org_id match, failing to enforce sharing-group membership and event-level ACL. This is a classic case of insufficient authorization logic rather than a completely missing check, making CWE-285 more precise than CWE-862.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-10 The attacker manipulates the target_id parameter (thread_id or post_id) in the posts/add request to reference a thread or post they do not have full access to. The incomplete server-side authorization check then permits the operation. CAPEC-10 is the closest available pattern for exploiting a server's failure to properly validate the authorization context of a user-supplied resource identifier. Uncertainty: no CAPEC specifically named 'Insecure Direct Object Reference' or 'Broken Access Control via Incomplete ACL' exists in the CAPEC catalog, so Parameter Tampering is the best available match.
Assumptions to verify
- The exact affected version range is uncertain; the tag boundary v2.5.48 with 42 commits after the fix suggests the fix landed around or before v2.5.48, but the precise first-affected and first-fixed versions are not stated in the patch.
- The checkIfAuthorised() method is assumed to enforce the full thread ACL including sharing groups and event visibility, based on the commit message description; the method's implementation is not included in the patch.
- CAPEC-10 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available CAPEC mapping; no CAPEC specifically covers 'incomplete authorization check on a direct object reference' was identified in the catalog.
- The CVSS assumes the attacker already possesses a valid MISP account (PR:L); unauthenticated access is not indicated by the patch.
- The AI co-author (Claude Opus 5.5) is credited as a tool rather than a person, per the Co-Authored-By line.
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 |
7 | 11 | medium | 5 |
- 2026-09-23 13:27 UTC Fix developed Corrective change authored (79fbd4c7580adc0518581351c3d8c3d5b3ac7c97): fix: [security] Apply the thread ACL when posting to a https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75.patch
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:misp:misp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"modules": [
"PostsController (discussion/thread posting)"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Controller/PostsController.php"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.48",
"status": "affected",
"version": "unspecified",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Bastien Bossiroy and C\u00e9lien Desteucq of NCIA"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context)"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eMISP contains an incomplete authorization check in the discussion posting functionality. When a user submits a post to a thread or replies to an existing post, the application only verified whether the target thread was restricted to a single organization (org-only distribution). It did not enforce the full thread access control list, including sharing-group membership and event-level visibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a result, an authenticated user who is outside the relevant sharing group or who does not have visibility on the associated event could:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Read the thread title and the content of the quoted post\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Submit a new post into the discussion thread\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis constitutes both an information disclosure (reading restricted thread and post content) and an integrity issue (injecting content into a thread the user is not authorized to participate in).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAffected: \u0026lt;2.5.48\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "MISP contains an incomplete authorization check in the discussion posting functionality. When a user submits a post to a thread or replies to an existing post, the application only verified whether the target thread was restricted to a single organization (org-only distribution). It did not enforce the full thread access control list, including sharing-group membership and event-level visibility.\n\nAs a result, an authenticated user who is outside the relevant sharing group or who does not have visibility on the associated event could:\n\n- Read the thread title and the content of the quoted post\n\n- Submit a new post into the discussion thread\n\nThis constitutes both an information disclosure (reading restricted thread and post content) and an integrity issue (injecting content into a thread the user is not authorized to participate in).\n\nAffected: \u003c2.5.48"
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-10",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-10 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: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"
}
]
},
{
"format": "SSVC",
"other": {
"content": {
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "Supplier",
"timestamp": "2026-10-01T11:16:47Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "SSVC"
},
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"description": "CWE-285 Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"orgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe fix replaces the limited org-only distribution check with a call to the thread\u0027s full authorization method (checkIfAuthorised), which enforces the complete access control list including sharing groups and event-level visibility. The thread is only read after successful authorization, preventing disclosure of the title and content to unauthorized users. An additional null-check on the post\u0027s thread_id was added to prevent referencing posts without a valid thread association.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix replaces the limited org-only distribution check with a call to the thread\u0027s full authorization method (checkIfAuthorised), which enforces the complete access control list including sharing groups and event-level visibility. The thread is only read after successful authorization, preventing disclosure of the title and content to unauthorized users. An additional null-check on the post\u0027s thread_id was added to prevent referencing posts without a valid thread association."
}
],
"title": "MISP Incomplete Thread Authorization Allows Unauthorized Read and Post Access to Discussions",
"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 exact affected version range is uncertain; the tag boundary v2.5.48 with 42 commits after the fix suggests the fix landed around or before v2.5.48, but the precise first-affected and first-fixed versions are not stated in the patch.",
"The checkIfAuthorised() method is assumed to enforce the full thread ACL including sharing groups and event visibility, based on the commit message description; the method\u0027s implementation is not included in the patch.",
"CAPEC-10 (Parameter Tampering) is the closest available CAPEC mapping; no CAPEC specifically covers \u0027incomplete authorization check on a direct object reference\u0027 was identified in the catalog.",
"The CVSS assumes the attacker already possesses a valid MISP account (PR:L); unauthenticated access is not indicated by the patch.",
"The AI co-author (Claude Opus 5.5) is credited as a tool rather than a person, per the Co-Authored-By line."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-10",
"rationale": "The attacker manipulates the target_id parameter (thread_id or post_id) in the posts/add request to reference a thread or post they do not have full access to. The incomplete server-side authorization check then permits the operation. CAPEC-10 is the closest available pattern for exploiting a server\u0027s failure to properly validate the authorization context of a user-supplied resource identifier. Uncertainty: no CAPEC specifically named \u0027Insecure Direct Object Reference\u0027 or \u0027Broken Access Control via Incomplete ACL\u0027 exists in the CAPEC catalog, so Parameter Tampering is the best available match."
}
],
"commit": "79fbd4c7580adc0518581351c3d8c3d5b3ac7c97",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Bastien Bossiroy and C\u00e9lien Desteucq of NCIA"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "iglocska"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context)"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N: web application accessible over network. AC:L: attacker only needs a valid thread_id or post_id, no race conditions or special timing. AT:N: no special attack prerequisites beyond authentication. PR:L: requires an authenticated MISP user account. UI:N: no victim interaction needed; the attacker directly issues the request. VC:L: attacker can read thread titles and quoted post content they should not see. VI:L: attacker can inject posts into unauthorized threads. VA:N: no availability impact. SC/SI/SA:N: no impact on subsequent components. The impact is bounded to the MISP instance\u0027s data and does not compromise the server or other systems.",
"fixSummary": "The fix replaces the limited org-only distribution check with a call to the thread\u0027s full authorization method (checkIfAuthorised), which enforces the complete access control list including sharing groups and event-level visibility. The thread is only read after successful authorization, preventing disclosure of the title and content to unauthorized users. An additional null-check on the post\u0027s thread_id was added to prevent referencing posts without a valid thread association.",
"generatedAt": "2026-10-01T11:16:47.016611Z",
"generator": "patch2vuln.py",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"modelComparison": {
"rankings": [
{
"agreementScore": 11,
"assumptionCount": 5,
"confidence": "medium",
"model": "qwen3.8:27b",
"score": 7
}
],
"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": "04551eba9b017a1a2ccf05a79c21466f3fd7095a42750bd2704d57b2e3730938",
"patchSummary": "In PostsController.php add() method: (1) For the \u0027thread\u0027 target case, replaced the inline distribution==0 and org_id comparison with a call to Thread-\u003echeckIfAuthorised() before reading the thread; removed the separate _isSiteAdmin() bypass. (2) For the \u0027post\u0027 target case, added a check that the post has a non-empty thread_id, replaced the same limited distribution/org check with Thread-\u003echeckIfAuthorised(), and reordered the thread read to occur after the authorization check. Net: 8 insertions, 12 deletions in one file.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "79fbd4c7580adc0518581351c3d8c3d5b3ac7c97",
"date": "Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:27:08 +0200",
"patchSha256": "04551eba9b017a1a2ccf05a79c21466f3fd7095a42750bd2704d57b2e3730938",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75.patch",
"subject": "fix: [security] Apply the thread ACL when posting to a"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75.patch",
"ssvc": {
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "Supplier",
"timestamp": "2026-10-01T11:16:47Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"subject": "fix: [security] Apply the thread ACL when posting to a",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 42,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.48",
"version": "2.5.48",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"rationale": "The authorization check was present but incomplete: it only verified org-level distribution (distribution==0) and org_id match, failing to enforce sharing-group membership and event-level ACL. This is a classic case of insufficient authorization logic rather than a completely missing check, making CWE-285 more precise than CWE-862."
}
]
}
},
"bcp-05-x-03": {
"x_timeline": {
"events": [
{
"description": "Corrective change authored (79fbd4c7580adc0518581351c3d8c3d5b3ac7c97): fix: [security] Apply the thread ACL when posting to a",
"id": "evt-fix-developed-1",
"references": [
"https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/79fbd4c75.patch"
],
"timestamp": "2026-09-23T13:27:08Z",
"type": "fix-developed"
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20244"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-103858",
"datePublished": "2026-10-01T11:31:25.274200Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-10-01T11:31:31.101Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-01T11:31:31.176439Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20244"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
GCVE-1-2026-20240 (CVE-2026-95805)
Vulnerability from gna-1 – Published: 2026-09-22 14:59 – Updated: 2026-09-22 14:59
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
MISP ACLComponent: Typo in previewEventAttributes ACL key bypasses intended access restriction
Summary
A typo in the MISP ACLComponent access control configuration caused the ACL rule for the previewEventAttributes action to reference the permission string 'theming_enabled*' (with a trailing asterisk) instead of the correct 'theming_enabled'. In the MISP ACL system, the array values define which role or permission grants access to a given controller action. The adjacent entry previewEventObjects correctly uses ['theming_enabled'], confirming the intended restriction. The malformed key 'theming_enabled*' does not match any valid permission identifier, causing the access control check for previewEventAttributes to malfunction. Depending on the ACL evaluation logic, this could result in either unauthorized users gaining access to the previewEventAttributes endpoint (authorization bypass) or legitimate users being denied access (availability impact).
The previewEventAttributes endpoint exposes event attribute data within MISP so an authorization bypass could expose sensitive indicator and attribute data to users who should not have access.
Severity
CWE
- CWE-285 - Improper Authorization
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/5ac8d1e4d | patch |
GCVE extensions
AI-generated
Human-reviewed
Confidence: medium
Model
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.
ai-computer-assisted:llm-generatedai-computer-assisted:classification
| Model | Source | Identifier |
|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8:27b | ollama | qwen3.8:27b |
- Generator
-
patch2vuln.pyon 2026-09-22 14:55 - Model
qwen3.8:27b- Input
-
https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/5ac8d1e4d.patch
c102952ebfab… - Confidence
- medium
| Commit | Subject | Patch SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|
5ac8d1e4dea7
|
fix: [ACL] typo in previewEventAttributes key | c102952ebfab… |
Fix summary
The fix corrects the ACL permission key for the previewEventAttributes action from the malformed string 'theming_enabled*' to the correct 'theming_enabled', restoring the intended access control restriction so that only users holding the theming_enabled permission can invoke the endpoint, consistent with the adjacent previewEventObjects entry.
Patch summary
In app/Controller/Component/ACLComponent.php (line 473), the ACL array value for the 'previewEventAttributes' key was changed from ['theming_enabled*'] to ['theming_enabled'], removing the erroneous trailing asterisk that made the permission string non-matching. One line changed, one insertion, one deletion.
CVSS rationale
AV:N: MISP is a network-accessible web application. AC:L: The vulnerability is a static typo in configuration; no race or complex condition is needed. AT:N: No attack target manipulation required. PR:L: The attacker must be an authenticated MISP user to reach the endpoint. UI:N: No victim interaction needed. VC:L: If the ACL bypass is confirmed, an unauthorized user could view event attribute data (limited confidentiality impact). VI:N and VA:N: No integrity or availability impact is evident from the patch. SC/SI/SA:N: No secondary system impact. The overall severity is Low, reflecting a single-endpoint access control misconfiguration with limited data exposure.
Weakness rationale
- CWE-285 The ACL rule for previewEventAttributes contained a typo ('theming_enabled*') that prevented the authorization check from matching the intended permission, causing the access control mechanism to not enforce the restriction as designed. This is a direct failure of the authorization logic due to a misconfigured rule.
Attack pattern rationale
- CAPEC-126 The closest plausible attack pattern is Forced Browsing, where an attacker accesses a resource (the previewEventAttributes endpoint) that should be restricted by the ACL. The typo in the ACL key may cause the authorization check to fail to deny access, effectively allowing a user without the theming_enabled permission to reach the endpoint. Uncertainty: the exact ACL evaluation behavior on a non-matching rule (default-deny vs. default-allow) is not visible in the patch, so it is also possible the typo causes a denial rather than a bypass. CAPEC-126 is selected as the best available match for an access-control bypass via misconfiguration.
Assumptions to verify
- The exact ACL evaluation behavior when a permission string does not match any valid role (default-deny vs. default-allow) is not visible in the patch; the CVSS assumes the more security-relevant interpretation (authorization bypass) but a denial-of-service interpretation is also possible.
- The affected version range is inferred from the tag boundary v2.5.47 (227 commits after the fix); the exact first affected version is not stated in the patch.
- The CAPEC-126 mapping is the closest available pattern; the actual attack is a configuration typo rather than an active browsing technique, so the mapping is approximate.
- The security impact is assumed to be limited to the previewEventAttributes endpoint; no evidence in the patch suggests other endpoints or data stores are affected.
- The CVSS assumes the endpoint exposes event attribute data viewable by unauthorized users; the actual data sensitivity depends on MISP deployment configuration.
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": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"modules": [
"ACLComponent"
],
"product": "MISP",
"programFiles": [
"app/Controller/Component/ACLComponent.php"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"vendor": "MISP",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.47",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Thomas Lacroix"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eA typo in the MISP ACLComponent access control configuration caused the ACL rule for the previewEventAttributes action to reference the permission string \u0027theming_enabled*\u0027 (with a trailing asterisk) instead of the correct \u0027theming_enabled\u0027. In the MISP ACL system, the array values define which role or permission grants access to a given controller action. The adjacent entry previewEventObjects correctly uses [\u0027theming_enabled\u0027], confirming the intended restriction. The malformed key \u0027theming_enabled*\u0027 does not match any valid permission identifier, causing the access control check for previewEventAttributes to malfunction. Depending on the ACL evaluation logic, this could result in either unauthorized users gaining access to the previewEventAttributes endpoint (authorization bypass) or legitimate users being denied access (availability impact).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe previewEventAttributes endpoint exposes event attribute data within MISP so an authorization bypass could expose sensitive indicator and attribute data to users who should not have access.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "A typo in the MISP ACLComponent access control configuration caused the ACL rule for the previewEventAttributes action to reference the permission string \u0027theming_enabled*\u0027 (with a trailing asterisk) instead of the correct \u0027theming_enabled\u0027. In the MISP ACL system, the array values define which role or permission grants access to a given controller action. The adjacent entry previewEventObjects correctly uses [\u0027theming_enabled\u0027], confirming the intended restriction. The malformed key \u0027theming_enabled*\u0027 does not match any valid permission identifier, causing the access control check for previewEventAttributes to malfunction. Depending on the ACL evaluation logic, this could result in either unauthorized users gaining access to the previewEventAttributes endpoint (authorization bypass) or legitimate users being denied access (availability impact).\u00a0\n\nThe previewEventAttributes endpoint exposes event attribute data within MISP so an authorization bypass could expose sensitive indicator and attribute data to users who should not have access."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-126",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-126 Forced Browsing"
}
]
}
],
"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-285",
"description": "CWE-285 Improper Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"orgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "Security patch",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/5ac8d1e4d"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eThe fix corrects the ACL permission key for the previewEventAttributes action from the malformed string \u0027theming_enabled*\u0027 to the correct \u0027theming_enabled\u0027, restoring the intended access control restriction so that only users holding the theming_enabled permission can invoke the endpoint, consistent with the adjacent previewEventObjects entry.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix corrects the ACL permission key for the previewEventAttributes action from the malformed string \u0027theming_enabled*\u0027 to the correct \u0027theming_enabled\u0027, restoring the intended access control restriction so that only users holding the theming_enabled permission can invoke the endpoint, consistent with the adjacent previewEventObjects entry."
}
],
"title": "MISP ACLComponent: Typo in previewEventAttributes ACL key bypasses intended access restriction",
"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 exact ACL evaluation behavior when a permission string does not match any valid role (default-deny vs. default-allow) is not visible in the patch; the CVSS assumes the more security-relevant interpretation (authorization bypass) but a denial-of-service interpretation is also possible.",
"The affected version range is inferred from the tag boundary v2.5.47 (227 commits after the fix); the exact first affected version is not stated in the patch.",
"The CAPEC-126 mapping is the closest available pattern; the actual attack is a configuration typo rather than an active browsing technique, so the mapping is approximate.",
"The security impact is assumed to be limited to the previewEventAttributes endpoint; no evidence in the patch suggests other endpoints or data stores are affected.",
"The CVSS assumes the endpoint exposes event attribute data viewable by unauthorized users; the actual data sensitivity depends on MISP deployment configuration."
],
"capecRationale": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-126",
"rationale": "The closest plausible attack pattern is Forced Browsing, where an attacker accesses a resource (the previewEventAttributes endpoint) that should be restricted by the ACL. The typo in the ACL key may cause the authorization check to fail to deny access, effectively allowing a user without the theming_enabled permission to reach the endpoint. Uncertainty: the exact ACL evaluation behavior on a non-matching rule (default-deny vs. default-allow) is not visible in the patch, so it is also possible the typo causes a denial rather than a bypass. CAPEC-126 is selected as the best available match for an access-control bypass via misconfiguration."
}
],
"commit": "5ac8d1e4dea72f71bec3789350b748f0ad21c42c",
"confidence": "medium",
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Thomas Lacroix"
}
],
"cvssRationale": "AV:N: MISP is a network-accessible web application. AC:L: The vulnerability is a static typo in configuration; no race or complex condition is needed. AT:N: No attack target manipulation required. PR:L: The attacker must be an authenticated MISP user to reach the endpoint. UI:N: No victim interaction needed. VC:L: If the ACL bypass is confirmed, an unauthorized user could view event attribute data (limited confidentiality impact). VI:N and VA:N: No integrity or availability impact is evident from the patch. SC/SI/SA:N: No secondary system impact. The overall severity is Low, reflecting a single-endpoint access control misconfiguration with limited data exposure.",
"fixSummary": "The fix corrects the ACL permission key for the previewEventAttributes action from the malformed string \u0027theming_enabled*\u0027 to the correct \u0027theming_enabled\u0027, restoring the intended access control restriction so that only users holding the theming_enabled permission can invoke the endpoint, consistent with the adjacent previewEventObjects entry.",
"generatedAt": "2026-09-22T14:55:18.958107Z",
"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": "c102952ebfaba16a0d028044d1bc0ab063381442b99de01bfc592144f2de9cc5",
"patchSummary": "In app/Controller/Component/ACLComponent.php (line 473), the ACL array value for the \u0027previewEventAttributes\u0027 key was changed from [\u0027theming_enabled*\u0027] to [\u0027theming_enabled\u0027], removing the erroneous trailing asterisk that made the permission string non-matching. One line changed, one insertion, one deletion.",
"patchTruncated": false,
"patches": [
{
"commit": "5ac8d1e4dea72f71bec3789350b748f0ad21c42c",
"patchSha256": "c102952ebfaba16a0d028044d1bc0ab063381442b99de01bfc592144f2de9cc5",
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/5ac8d1e4d.patch",
"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/5ac8d1e4d.patch",
"subject": "fix: [ACL] typo in previewEventAttributes key"
}
],
"source": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/5ac8d1e4d.patch",
"subject": "fix: [ACL] typo in previewEventAttributes key",
"tagVersionBoundary": {
"commits_after_fix": 227,
"repository": "https://github.com/MISP/MISP",
"tag": "v2.5.47",
"version": "2.5.47",
"version_type": "semver"
},
"weaknessRationale": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-285",
"rationale": "The ACL rule for previewEventAttributes contained a typo (\u0027theming_enabled*\u0027) that prevented the authorization check from matching the intended permission, causing the access control mechanism to not enforce the restriction as designed. This is a direct failure of the authorization logic due to a misconfigured rule."
}
]
}
}
},
"recordType": "advisory",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20240"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-95805",
"datePublished": "2026-09-22T14:59:06.674611Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T14:59:19.797Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-22T14:59:19.861474Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED",
"vulnId": "GCVE-1-2026-20240"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
- Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Architecture and Design
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
System Configuration
Installation
Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
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-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
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-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-39: Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens
In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated. If client or server-side application components reinterpret that data as authentication tokens or data (such as store item pricing or wallet information) then even opaquely manipulating that data may bear fruit for an Attacker. In this pattern an attacker undermines the assumption that client side tokens have been adequately protected from tampering through use of encryption or obfuscation.
CAPEC-402: Bypassing ATA Password Security
An adversary exploits a weakness in ATA security on a drive to gain access to the information the drive contains without supplying the proper credentials. ATA Security is often employed to protect hard disk information from unauthorized access. The mechanism requires the user to type in a password before the BIOS is allowed access to drive contents. Some implementations of ATA security will accept the ATA command to update the password without the user having authenticated with the BIOS. This occurs because the security mechanism assumes the user has first authenticated via the BIOS prior to sending commands to the drive. Various methods exist for exploiting this flaw, the most common being installing the ATA protected drive into a system lacking ATA security features (a.k.a. hot swapping). Once the drive is installed into the new system the BIOS can be used to reset the drive password.
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-5: Blue Boxing
This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
{'xhtml:b': 'This attack pattern is included in CAPEC for historical purposes.'}
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization to gather system-specific data and sensitive information within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist). These contain information about the system configuration, software, operating system, and security. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.