🚨 CVE-2026-44653
LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed secrets through `GET /api/mcp/servers` and `GET /api/mcp/servers/:serverName`. The returned config includes plaintext values for `apiKey.key` and `oauth.client_secret`. This allows viewers of a shared MCP server to exfiltrate the underlying provider credentials. Version 0.8..4 contains a patch. Other remediations include: never returning decrypted admin-managed secrets to non-owners; redacting apiKey.key and oauth.client_secret from all API responses consider returning only boolean presence indicators for secrets, similar to the auth-values route pattern; and, if owners need to edit configs without re-entering secrets, preserving secrets server-side and returning placeholders instead of plaintext.
🎖@cveNotify
LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed secrets through `GET /api/mcp/servers` and `GET /api/mcp/servers/:serverName`. The returned config includes plaintext values for `apiKey.key` and `oauth.client_secret`. This allows viewers of a shared MCP server to exfiltrate the underlying provider credentials. Version 0.8..4 contains a patch. Other remediations include: never returning decrypted admin-managed secrets to non-owners; redacting apiKey.key and oauth.client_secret from all API responses consider returning only boolean presence indicators for secrets, similar to the auth-values route pattern; and, if owners need to edit configs without re-entering secrets, preserving secrets server-side and returning placeholders instead of plaintext.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Shared MCP Server View Leaks Decrypted Admin Secrets
# LibreChat Bounty Report: Shared MCP Server View Leaks Decrypted Admin Secrets
## Summary
Users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed...
## Summary
Users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed...
🚨 CVE-2026-44654
LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, a shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the shared agent — breaking the owner's other private agents that reference the same `file_id`. The private agent retains a stale `file_id` reference that no longer resolves. A shared-agent editor can destroy files that the owner uses across multiple agents. The owner's private agents — which the attacker has no access to — break silently with stale `file_id` references. This is a cross-agent integrity violation: editing access to one agent should not affect another. Version 0.8.4 contains a patch.
🎖@cveNotify
LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, a shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the shared agent — breaking the owner's other private agents that reference the same `file_id`. The private agent retains a stale `file_id` reference that no longer resolves. A shared-agent editor can destroy files that the owner uses across multiple agents. The owner's private agents — which the attacker has no access to — break silently with stale `file_id` references. This is a cross-agent integrity violation: editing access to one agent should not affect another. Version 0.8.4 contains a patch.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Shared-agent editor can globally delete owner's file records — breaks owner's other private agents
### Summary
A shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the...
A shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the...
🚨 CVE-2026-7421
The Passeum Ticketing plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to the `get_shop_url()` method returning the `shop_name` setting value without sanitization when it begins with "http", combined with insufficient validation in the `validate_shop_name()` function which only checks for empty values and string type. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Administrator-level access and above, to inject arbitrary external scripts by setting the `shop_name` to an attacker-controlled URL (e.g., `https://attacker.com`), which causes the plugin to enqueue external JavaScript and CSS from the attacker-controlled domain via `wp_register_script()` and `wp_register_style()`. The injected scripts execute on every frontend page containing any Passeum Ticketing shortcode, affecting all site visitors. Please note that this does not affect single-site installations as administrators already have the `unfiltered_html` capability.
🎖@cveNotify
The Passeum Ticketing plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to the `get_shop_url()` method returning the `shop_name` setting value without sanitization when it begins with "http", combined with insufficient validation in the `validate_shop_name()` function which only checks for empty values and string type. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Administrator-level access and above, to inject arbitrary external scripts by setting the `shop_name` to an attacker-controlled URL (e.g., `https://attacker.com`), which causes the plugin to enqueue external JavaScript and CSS from the attacker-controlled domain via `wp_register_script()` and `wp_register_style()`. The injected scripts execute on every frontend page containing any Passeum Ticketing shortcode, affecting all site visitors. Please note that this does not affect single-site installations as administrators already have the `unfiltered_html` capability.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9334
Cpanel::JSON::XS versions before 4.41 for Perl allow type confusion via duplicate object keys when dupkeys_as_arrayref is enabled.
decode_hv() collapses duplicate object keys into an array reference under dupkeys_as_arrayref. The branch reached for a duplicate key tests `SvTYPE (old_value) != SVt_RV && SvTYPE (SvRV (old_value)) != SVt_PVAV`, which evaluates SvRV(old_value) before establishing that old_value is a reference. When the existing value is a plain scalar rather than an array reference, a non-reference scalar is dereferenced as a reference.
A caller decoding untrusted JSON with dupkeys_as_arrayref enabled is crashed, and the incompatible access follows a pointer taken from attacker controlled scalar contents.
🎖@cveNotify
Cpanel::JSON::XS versions before 4.41 for Perl allow type confusion via duplicate object keys when dupkeys_as_arrayref is enabled.
decode_hv() collapses duplicate object keys into an array reference under dupkeys_as_arrayref. The branch reached for a duplicate key tests `SvTYPE (old_value) != SVt_RV && SvTYPE (SvRV (old_value)) != SVt_PVAV`, which evaluates SvRV(old_value) before establishing that old_value is a reference. When the existing value is a plain scalar rather than an array reference, a non-reference scalar is dereferenced as a reference.
A caller decoding untrusted JSON with dupkeys_as_arrayref enabled is crashed, and the incompatible access follows a pointer taken from attacker controlled scalar contents.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-4035
A vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow versions prior to 3.11.0 allows for the resolution of environment variables in AI Gateway secrets, which can be exploited to exfiltrate sensitive server-side environment credentials to an attacker-controlled endpoint. This issue arises because the `api_key` field in gateway secrets can accept `$ENV_VAR` references, which are resolved against the MLflow server's environment during runtime. The resolved secrets are then sent in provider authentication headers to the configured upstream `api_base`. This vulnerability can be exploited by low-privileged authenticated users in basic-auth deployments or by unauthenticated users in default deployments without `basic-auth`. The impact includes potential leakage of sensitive credentials such as cloud artifact credentials (`AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`, `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`), which could lead to artifact poisoning and cross-boundary code execution in downstream environments. The issue is fixed in version 3.11.0.
🎖@cveNotify
A vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow versions prior to 3.11.0 allows for the resolution of environment variables in AI Gateway secrets, which can be exploited to exfiltrate sensitive server-side environment credentials to an attacker-controlled endpoint. This issue arises because the `api_key` field in gateway secrets can accept `$ENV_VAR` references, which are resolved against the MLflow server's environment during runtime. The resolved secrets are then sent in provider authentication headers to the configured upstream `api_base`. This vulnerability can be exploited by low-privileged authenticated users in basic-auth deployments or by unauthenticated users in default deployments without `basic-auth`. The impact includes potential leakage of sensitive credentials such as cloud artifact credentials (`AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`, `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`), which could lead to artifact poisoning and cross-boundary code execution in downstream environments. The issue is fixed in version 3.11.0.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Gate env-var API key resolution behind MLFLOW_GATEWAY_RESOLVE_API_KEY… · mlflow/mlflow@4a3f2f7
…_FROM_ENV (#21544)
Signed-off-by: Tomu Hirata <tomu.hirata@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomu Hirata <tomu.hirata@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
🚨 CVE-2026-35193
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not add `Authorization` to the `Vary` response header for requests bearing that header without `Cache-Control: public`, which allows remote attackers to read private cached responses via unauthenticated requests to the same URL.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Shai Berger for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not add `Authorization` to the `Vary` response header for requests bearing that header without `Cache-Control: public`, which allows remote attackers to read private cached responses via unauthenticated requests to the same URL.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Shai Berger for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Django Project
Archive of security issues | Django documentation
The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
🚨 CVE-2026-48587
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.utils.cache.has_vary_header()` in Django does not strip leading or trailing whitespace from `Vary` response header values before comparison, which allows remote attackers to read cached responses via requests to URLs whose responses contain whitespace-padded Vary header values.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Navid Rezazadeh for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.utils.cache.has_vary_header()` in Django does not strip leading or trailing whitespace from `Vary` response header values before comparison, which allows remote attackers to read cached responses via requests to URLs whose responses contain whitespace-padded Vary header values.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Navid Rezazadeh for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Django Project
Archive of security issues | Django documentation
The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
🚨 CVE-2026-5241
A vulnerability in the LightGlue model loading path of huggingface/transformers version 5.2.0 allows an attacker-controlled model repository to execute arbitrary code during model initialization. The issue arises because the `trust_remote_code` parameter, intended to prevent remote code execution, is overridden by untrusted serialized configuration data in a nested code path. Specifically, when loading a LightGlue model using `AutoModel.from_pretrained()` with `trust_remote_code=False`, the `LightGlueConfig` reads the `trust_remote_code` value from the untrusted `config.json` file and propagates it into nested `AutoConfig.from_pretrained()` calls. This results in the execution of attacker-provided Python modules, even when the victim explicitly disables remote code execution. The vulnerability poses a high risk for environments such as API inference servers, research notebooks, CI/CD pipelines, and model evaluation workers, potentially leading to credential theft, lateral movement, or persistence/backdoor deployment.
🎖@cveNotify
A vulnerability in the LightGlue model loading path of huggingface/transformers version 5.2.0 allows an attacker-controlled model repository to execute arbitrary code during model initialization. The issue arises because the `trust_remote_code` parameter, intended to prevent remote code execution, is overridden by untrusted serialized configuration data in a nested code path. Specifically, when loading a LightGlue model using `AutoModel.from_pretrained()` with `trust_remote_code=False`, the `LightGlueConfig` reads the `trust_remote_code` value from the untrusted `config.json` file and propagates it into nested `AutoConfig.from_pretrained()` calls. This results in the execution of attacker-provided Python modules, even when the victim explicitly disables remote code execution. The vulnerability poses a high risk for environments such as API inference servers, research notebooks, CI/CD pipelines, and model evaluation workers, potentially leading to credential theft, lateral movement, or persistence/backdoor deployment.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
:rotating_light: [`LightGlue`] Remove remote code execution (#45122) · huggingface/transformers@676559d
* fix
* style
* style
🚨 CVE-2026-6873
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15.
`django.http.HttpRequest.get_signed_cookie` in Django uses a non-injective salt derivation (concatenating the cookie name and salt argument), which allows a remote attacker to use a cookie in a context different from the one where it was signed, via distinct `(name, salt)` pairs that produce the same concatenation.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Peng Zhou for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15.
`django.http.HttpRequest.get_signed_cookie` in Django uses a non-injective salt derivation (concatenating the cookie name and salt argument), which allows a remote attacker to use a cookie in a context different from the one where it was signed, via distinct `(name, salt)` pairs that produce the same concatenation.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Peng Zhou for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Django Project
Archive of security issues | Django documentation
The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
🚨 CVE-2026-7666
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15.
`django.core.mail.backends.smtp.EmailBackend` in Django fails to prevent reuse of a partially-initialized connection after a failed `STARTTLS` handshake when `fail_silently=True`, which allows on-path network attackers to read email content via cleartext interception.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Kasper Dupont for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15.
`django.core.mail.backends.smtp.EmailBackend` in Django fails to prevent reuse of a partially-initialized connection after a failed `STARTTLS` handshake when `fail_silently=True`, which allows on-path network attackers to read email content via cleartext interception.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Kasper Dupont for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Django Project
Archive of security issues | Django documentation
The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
🚨 CVE-2026-8404
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not match `Cache-Control` response directives case-insensitively, which allows remote attackers to read responses that were incorrectly cached because their `Cache-Control` directives used uppercase or mixed-case values.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Ahmed Badawe for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not match `Cache-Control` response directives case-insensitively, which allows remote attackers to read responses that were incorrectly cached because their `Cache-Control` directives used uppercase or mixed-case values.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Ahmed Badawe for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Django Project
Archive of security issues | Django documentation
The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
🚨 CVE-2022-31114
backpack/crud provides Create, Read, Update & Delete (CRUD) functions for Backpack, a collection of Laravel packages that help users build custom administration panels. Versions prior to 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 are vulnerable to cross-site scripting. An attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to trick users or admins into clicking a malicious link, which under very specific circumstances could give them information or possibly admin access. Versions 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 patch the issue. As a workaround, manually look inside error views in `resources/views/errors` and output `e($exception->getMessage())` instead of `$exception->getMessage()`.
🎖@cveNotify
backpack/crud provides Create, Read, Update & Delete (CRUD) functions for Backpack, a collection of Laravel packages that help users build custom administration panels. Versions prior to 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 are vulnerable to cross-site scripting. An attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to trick users or admins into clicking a malicious link, which under very specific circumstances could give them information or possibly admin access. Versions 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 patch the issue. As a workaround, manually look inside error views in `resources/views/errors` and output `e($exception->getMessage())` instead of `$exception->getMessage()`.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') in backpack/crud
### Impact
It’s a “*moderate*” vulnerability… but being an admin panel, we take this seriously. It’s difficult… but an attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to **trick yo...
It’s a “*moderate*” vulnerability… but being an admin panel, we take this seriously. It’s difficult… but an attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to **trick yo...
🚨 CVE-2026-6657
A vulnerability in jupyter-server versions 1.12.0 through 2.17.0 allows an attacker to bypass CORS origin validation when the `allow_origin_pat` configuration is used. The issue arises from the use of `re.match()` for validating the `Origin` header, which only anchors at the start of the string. This allows attacker-controlled domains such as `trusted.example.com.evil.com` to pass validation against patterns intended to match `trusted.example.com`. The vulnerability affects multiple locations in the codebase, including CORS headers, WebSocket connections, referer validation, and login redirects, potentially enabling phishing attacks, arbitrary code execution, and unauthorized access to sensitive API responses.
🎖@cveNotify
A vulnerability in jupyter-server versions 1.12.0 through 2.17.0 allows an attacker to bypass CORS origin validation when the `allow_origin_pat` configuration is used. The issue arises from the use of `re.match()` for validating the `Origin` header, which only anchors at the start of the string. This allows attacker-controlled domains such as `trusted.example.com.evil.com` to pass validation against patterns intended to match `trusted.example.com`. The vulnerability affects multiple locations in the codebase, including CORS headers, WebSocket connections, referer validation, and login redirects, potentially enabling phishing attacks, arbitrary code execution, and unauthorized access to sensitive API responses.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-40290
OP-TEE is a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) designed as companion to a non-secure Linux kernel running on Arm; Cortex-A cores using the TrustZone technology. Starting in version 3.16.0 and prior to 4.11.0, a user-after-free (UAF) race condition exists in the shared memory teardown logic of FF-A within OP-TEE SPMC/SP flows. This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`. The function `sp_mem_remove()`, responsible for freeing entries in `smem->receivers` and `smem->regions`, fails to acquire the global `sp_mem_lock` before performing the `free()` operations. Concurrently, other code paths, such as `sp_mem_get_receiver()`, iterate over these same lists without holding a lock, or, like `sp_mem_is_shared()`, iterate while holding the lock but are not serialized against the unprotected `free()` in `sp_mem_remove()`. This creates a cross-thread race where a thread iterating the list can acquire a pointer to an entry (e.g., `struct sp_mem_map_region` or `struct sp_mem_receiver`), and then another thread calls `sp_mem_remove()`, freeing the object. When the first thread resumes and dereferences the pointer, it results in a Use-After-Free vulnerability. Version 4.11.0 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
OP-TEE is a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) designed as companion to a non-secure Linux kernel running on Arm; Cortex-A cores using the TrustZone technology. Starting in version 3.16.0 and prior to 4.11.0, a user-after-free (UAF) race condition exists in the shared memory teardown logic of FF-A within OP-TEE SPMC/SP flows. This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`. The function `sp_mem_remove()`, responsible for freeing entries in `smem->receivers` and `smem->regions`, fails to acquire the global `sp_mem_lock` before performing the `free()` operations. Concurrently, other code paths, such as `sp_mem_get_receiver()`, iterate over these same lists without holding a lock, or, like `sp_mem_is_shared()`, iterate while holding the lock but are not serialized against the unprotected `free()` in `sp_mem_remove()`. This creates a cross-thread race where a thread iterating the list can acquire a pointer to an entry (e.g., `struct sp_mem_map_region` or `struct sp_mem_receiver`), and then another thread calls `sp_mem_remove()`, freeing the object. When the first thread resumes and dereferences the pointer, it results in a Use-After-Free vulnerability. Version 4.11.0 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Use-After-Free race in FF-A shared-memory teardown
# User-after-free race in FF-A shared-memory teardown
## Summary
This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`.
A critical us...
## Summary
This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`.
A critical us...
🚨 CVE-2026-50131
Fedify is a TypeScript library for building federated server apps powered by ActivityPub. Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the IPv4 validation logic present starting in version 0.11.2 and prior to versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 appears incomplete. The `validatePublicUrl()` protection relies on `isValidPublicIPv4Address()` to reject non-public IPv4 destinations. The function blocks common private and local ranges such as `10.0.0.0/8`, `127.0.0.0/8`, `169.254.0.0/16`, `172.16.0.0/12`, and `192.168.0.0/16`, but it still treats several special-use, reserved, multicast, benchmarking, and carrier-grade NAT IPv4 ranges as valid public destinations. Because this validation is used as an SSRF defense before outbound fetches, this appears to be an incomplete mitigation or bypass class for the previous SSRF issue. Versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 contain an updated patch.
🎖@cveNotify
Fedify is a TypeScript library for building federated server apps powered by ActivityPub. Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the IPv4 validation logic present starting in version 0.11.2 and prior to versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 appears incomplete. The `validatePublicUrl()` protection relies on `isValidPublicIPv4Address()` to reject non-public IPv4 destinations. The function blocks common private and local ranges such as `10.0.0.0/8`, `127.0.0.0/8`, `169.254.0.0/16`, `172.16.0.0/12`, and `192.168.0.0/16`, but it still treats several special-use, reserved, multicast, benchmarking, and carrier-grade NAT IPv4 ranges as valid public destinations. Because this validation is used as an SSRF defense before outbound fetches, this appears to be an incomplete mitigation or bypass class for the previous SSRF issue. Versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 contain an updated patch.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Incomplete SSRF mitigation after GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx: validatePublicUrl allows special-use IPv4 ranges
### Summary
Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the current IPv4 ...
Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the current IPv4 ...
🚨 CVE-2026-42563
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, Dulwich's `ProcessMergeDriver` substitutes the file path (from the git tree, controllable by an attacker via a malicious branch) into the merge driver command via the `%P` placeholder and executes it with `subprocess.run(..., shell=True)`. An attacker who can cause a victim to merge an untrusted branch can achieve arbitrary command execution by crafting malicious file paths. Version 1.2.5 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, Dulwich's `ProcessMergeDriver` substitutes the file path (from the git tree, controllable by an attacker via a malicious branch) into the merge driver command via the `%P` placeholder and executes it with `subprocess.run(..., shell=True)`. An attacker who can cause a victim to merge an untrusted branch can achieve arbitrary command execution by crafting malicious file paths. Version 1.2.5 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
merge_drivers: shell-quote placeholder values (CVE-2026-42563) · jelmer/dulwich@e3331b3
%P expands to the merging file's path, which comes from the git tree
and is attacker-controllable via a malicious branch. Previously it
was interpolated unquoted into a shell=True command.
...
and is attacker-controllable via a malicious branch. Previously it
was interpolated unquoted into a shell=True command.
...
🚨 CVE-2026-42568
Yamcs is a mission control framework. Prior to versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7, an LDAP injection vulnerability exists in `org.yamcs.security.LdapAuthModule` when constructing search filters. The username parameter is inserted directly into the LDAP filter without proper RFC 4515 escaping. Versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7 patch the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Yamcs is a mission control framework. Prior to versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7, an LDAP injection vulnerability exists in `org.yamcs.security.LdapAuthModule` when constructing search filters. The username parameter is inserted directly into the LDAP filter without proper RFC 4515 escaping. Versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7 patch the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Release Yamcs 5.12.7 · yamcs/yamcs
security updates
🚨 CVE-2026-47712
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, dulwich.porcelain.format_patch(outdir=...) derives each patch filename from the commit's subject line. Prior to this fix, get_summary only replaced spaces with dashes - path separators (/, \), parent-directory components (..), and other filename-hostile characters (e.g. :) were preserved verbatim and passed straight into os.path.join(outdir, f"{i:04d}-{summary}.patch"). A malicious commit subject could therefore direct the generated patch file outside the requested outdir. This is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. dulwich.patch.get_summary now mirrors git's format_sanitized_subject: only `[A-Za-z0-9._]` are kept, runs of other characters collapse to a single -, consecutive . collapse to a single ., trailing ./- are stripped, and the result is length-limited. This makes the returned string safe to embed as a filename component, so format_patch can no longer be steered out of outdir via the commit subject. Until upgrading, callers that pass untrusted commits to porcelain.format_patch can use stdout=True and write the patch to a destination they control, rather than letting format_patch choose the filename; validate the chosen path before opening - e.g. compare os.path.realpath(returned_path) against os.path.realpath(outdir) and reject any patch whose resolved path is not inside outdir; and/or pre-screen commits and refuse to format any whose subject's first line contains /, \, .., or other characters that are not safe on the target filesystem.
🎖@cveNotify
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, dulwich.porcelain.format_patch(outdir=...) derives each patch filename from the commit's subject line. Prior to this fix, get_summary only replaced spaces with dashes - path separators (/, \), parent-directory components (..), and other filename-hostile characters (e.g. :) were preserved verbatim and passed straight into os.path.join(outdir, f"{i:04d}-{summary}.patch"). A malicious commit subject could therefore direct the generated patch file outside the requested outdir. This is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. dulwich.patch.get_summary now mirrors git's format_sanitized_subject: only `[A-Za-z0-9._]` are kept, runs of other characters collapse to a single -, consecutive . collapse to a single ., trailing ./- are stripped, and the result is length-limited. This makes the returned string safe to embed as a filename component, so format_patch can no longer be steered out of outdir via the commit subject. Until upgrading, callers that pass untrusted commits to porcelain.format_patch can use stdout=True and write the patch to a destination they control, rather than letting format_patch choose the filename; validate the chosen path before opening - e.g. compare os.path.realpath(returned_path) against os.path.realpath(outdir) and reject any patch whose resolved path is not inside outdir; and/or pre-screen commits and refuse to format any whose subject's first line contains /, \, .., or other characters that are not safe on the target filesystem.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
patch: Sanitize commit subject in get_summary to prevent format_patch… · jelmer/dulwich@c2446e5
… escapes
A malicious commit subject (e.g. ``x/../../x`` or ``x\..\..\x``) could
direct ``porcelain.format_patch`` to write its patch outside the
requested ``outdir`` because ``get_summary`` only ...
A malicious commit subject (e.g. ``x/../../x`` or ``x\..\..\x``) could
direct ``porcelain.format_patch`` to write its patch outside the
requested ``outdir`` because ``get_summary`` only ...
🚨 CVE-2026-52726
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.23.2 and prior to version 1.2.5, `dulwich.porcelain.submodule_update`, and by extension `porcelain.clone(..., recurse_submodules=True)`, materializes attacker-controlled submodule paths from a crafted upstream repository without path validation. A malicious `.gitmodules` plus a matching tree gitlink whose `path` is `.git/hooks` (or any other directory inside the parent repository's `.git` directory) causes the attacker's submodule tree contents to be written directly into the victim's `.git/hooks/` directory, preserving executable mode bits. The dropped executables are then run by any subsequent `git` or `dulwich` command that invokes the matching hook, resulting in arbitrary code execution. This is the dulwich equivalent of the upstream Git fixes for CVE-2024-32002 / CVE-2024-32004, which were never propagated into dulwich's separately implemented submodule porcelain. Version 1.2.5 patches the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.23.2 and prior to version 1.2.5, `dulwich.porcelain.submodule_update`, and by extension `porcelain.clone(..., recurse_submodules=True)`, materializes attacker-controlled submodule paths from a crafted upstream repository without path validation. A malicious `.gitmodules` plus a matching tree gitlink whose `path` is `.git/hooks` (or any other directory inside the parent repository's `.git` directory) causes the attacker's submodule tree contents to be written directly into the victim's `.git/hooks/` directory, preserving executable mode bits. The dropped executables are then run by any subsequent `git` or `dulwich` command that invokes the matching hook, resulting in arbitrary code execution. This is the dulwich equivalent of the upstream Git fixes for CVE-2024-32002 / CVE-2024-32004, which were never propagated into dulwich's separately implemented submodule porcelain. Version 1.2.5 patches the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Release 1.2.5 · jelmer/dulwich
This is a security release. All users are encouraged to upgrade.
Security fixes
GHSA-gfhv-vqv2-4544 -- Validate submodule paths in porcelain.submodule_update (and thus porcelain.clone(recurse_sub...
Security fixes
GHSA-gfhv-vqv2-4544 -- Validate submodule paths in porcelain.submodule_update (and thus porcelain.clone(recurse_sub...
🚨 CVE-2026-9061
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not sanitize and escape store logo metadata before storing it and outputting it on the Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 admin page, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the `unfiltered_html` capability is disallowed (e.g. in a multisite network).
🎖@cveNotify
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not sanitize and escape store logo metadata before storing it and outputting it on the Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 admin page, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the `unfiltered_html` capability is disallowed (e.g. in a multisite network).
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Stored XSS via logo_name
See details on Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Stored XSS via logo_name CVE 2026-9061. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-9062
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not validate a parameter before using it in a file path, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to read arbitrary `.php` files from the server, including configuration files that contain database credentials and authentication keys.
🎖@cveNotify
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not validate a parameter before using it in a file path, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to read arbitrary `.php` files from the server, including configuration files that contain database credentials and authentication keys.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Arbitrary File Read via Path Traversal
See details on Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Arbitrary File Read via Path Traversal CVE 2026-9062. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.