[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2022-49194":30,"landing-articles":76},{"count":4,"next":5,"previous":6,"results":7},266,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Ftrending_attacks\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",null,[8,17,20],{"id":9,"title":10,"summary":11,"published_at":12,"severity":13,"vendor":14,"products":15},265,"Google Brotli decoder - Remote Code Execution via compressed requests (Exploitation Check)","This control is the second step of the Patrowl response to CVE-2026-111497 (Node2Shell). It complements the first control of 22 October 2026, which focused on the Node.js runtime, and does not replace it.\r\n\r\nWhy a second control\r\n\r\nCVE-2026-111497 is an out-of-bounds write in the Google Brotli decoder, the library that decompresses Brotli (\"br\") data. It was first published as a Node.js vulnerability, because Node.js bundles this decoder. Later publications showed that the flaw is in the library itself. Every product that embeds an affected version of the decoder is concerned, whatever its language or vendor. A public proof of concept demonstrates code execution.\r\n\r\nAny server that decompresses request bodies sent with \"Content-Encoding: br\" exposes the decoder to unauthenticated attackers. Known cases include Express 5 and NestJS 11 on Node.js, Koa and Fastify setups, Bun, Envoy and Istio with request decompression enabled, and any application or reverse proxy that decodes Brotli request bodies with an affected library.\r\n\r\nThe flaw also works in the other direction. A malicious server can compromise an unpatched client that decodes a Brotli response, for example Node.js fetch(), Python clients (requests, httpx, aiohttp, Scrapy) with the Brotli or brotlicffi package, or libcurl builds with Brotli support.\r\n\r\nWhat this control checks\r\n\r\nPatrowl sends small, valid Brotli-compressed requests to each asset and observes whether the server decodes them. The check does not depend on the technology: it detects the behaviour, whatever the stack behind it. These requests are what any legitimate client could send. They never reach the vulnerable code path and cannot affect the availability of the service.\r\n\r\nHow to read the result\r\n\r\nPotentially impacted means the asset decodes Brotli request bodies: the attack surface is exposed. It does not confirm that the asset is vulnerable. The version of the Brotli decoder in use is not visible from the outside.\r\n\r\nThis check covers applications that parse request bodies on their root path. A Not impacted result does not rule out exposure on other routes, nor on the client side. Checking the versions on the servers remains the only exhaustive verification.\r\n\r\nAffected and fixed versions\r\n\r\nGoogle Brotli 1.0.3 to 1.2.0 are affected, fixed in 1.0.10, 1.1.1 and 1.2.1. Fixed releases of the main products embedding it: Node.js 22.23.4, 24.22.1 and 26.12.1 (end-of-life lines 20.x and older and 25.x receive no fix), Bun 1.4.4, Envoy 1.37.8, 1.38.6, 1.39.3 and 1.40.0, Istio 1.29.9, 1.30.6 and 1.31.2, Python Brotli 1.2.1 and brotlicffi 1.2.1.0. Products that link against the system library depend on the Brotli package of the Linux distribution.\r\n\r\nRecommendations\r\n\r\nUpdate every component that embeds the Brotli decoder (only real fix). Start with the assets flagged by this control. Restart the processes after the update. Rebuild containers, single-executable applications and appliances that bundle an affected runtime or library.\r\n\r\nReduce the exposure until the update is deployed. Reject requests with \"Content-Encoding: br\" at the reverse proxy, load balancer or WAF, case-insensitively and including lists such as \"gzip, br\". On Envoy and Istio, disable request decompression for Brotli.\r\n\r\nReview outbound calls. List the features that fetch content from servers you do not control, and patch the services that host them first.","2026-10-24T10:37:22.192753Z",4,"google",[16],"brotli",{"id":4,"title":10,"summary":18,"published_at":12,"severity":13,"vendor":14,"products":19},"This control is the second step of the Patrowl response to CVE-2026-111497 (Node2Shell). It complements the first control of 22 October 2026, which focused on the Node.js runtime, and does not replace it.\r\n\r\nWhy a second control\r\n\r\nCVE-2026-111497 is an out-of-bounds write in the Google Brotli decoder, the library that decompresses Brotli (\"br\") data. It was first published as a Node.js vulnerability, because Node.js bundles this decoder. Later publications showed that the flaw is in the library itself. Every product that embeds an affected version of the decoder is concerned, whatever its language or vendor. A public proof of concept demonstrates code execution.\r\n\r\nAny server that decompresses request bodies sent with \"Content-Encoding: br\" exposes the decoder to unauthenticated attackers. Known cases include Express 5 and NestJS 11 on Node.js, Koa and Fastify setups, Bun, Envoy and Istio with request decompression enabled, and any application or reverse proxy that decodes Brotli request bodies with an affected library.\r\n\r\nThe flaw also works in the other direction. A malicious server can compromise an unpatched client that decodes a Brotli response, for example Node.js fetch(), Python clients (requests, httpx, aiohttp, Scrapy) with the Brotli or brotlicffi package, or libcurl builds with Brotli support.\r\n\r\nWhat this control checks\r\n\r\nPatrowl sends small, valid Brotli-compressed requests to each asset and observes whether the server decodes them. The check does not depend on the technology: it detects the behaviour, whatever the stack behind it. These requests are what any legitimate client could send. They never reach the vulnerable code path and cannot affect the availability of the service.\r\n\r\nHow to read the result\r\n\r\nPotentially impacted means the asset decodes Brotli request bodies: the attack surface is exposed. It does not confirm that the asset is vulnerable. The version of the Brotli decoder in use is not visible from the outside.\r\n\r\nThis check covers applications that parse request bodies on their root path. A Not impacted result does not rule out exposure on other routes, nor on the client side. Checking the versions on the servers remains the only exhaustive verification.\r\n\r\nTwo situations are possible. When the decoding is done by your own application or reverse proxy, identify the component and update it. If an update is not possible right away, reject requests with \"Content-Encoding: br\" at the reverse proxy or WAF.\r\n\r\nWhen the asset is hosted on a managed platform or behind a CDN (for example Platform.sh, Upsun or Fastly), the decoding may be done by the provider's edge router, in front of your application. You cannot patch it yourself, but this router handles all the traffic of your site. Ask your provider to confirm that its edge components are patched against CVE-2026-111497. Assets hosted on a managed platform or behind a CDN carry the tag \"paas: platform.sh\" or \"cdn: fastly\" in the asset view: for these assets, the Brotli decoding is done by the provider's edge router, in front of your application, and only the provider can patch it.\r\n\r\nAffected and fixed versions\r\n\r\nGoogle Brotli 1.0.3 to 1.2.0 are affected, fixed in 1.0.10, 1.1.1 and 1.2.1. Fixed releases of the main products embedding it: Node.js 22.23.4, 24.22.1 and 26.12.1 (end-of-life lines 20.x and older and 25.x receive no fix), Bun 1.4.4, Envoy 1.37.8, 1.38.6, 1.39.3 and 1.40.0, Istio 1.29.9, 1.30.6 and 1.31.2, Python Brotli 1.2.1 and brotlicffi 1.2.1.0. Products that link against the system library depend on the Brotli package of the Linux distribution.\r\n\r\nRecommendations\r\n\r\nUpdate every component that embeds the Brotli decoder (only real fix). Start with the assets flagged by this control. Restart the processes after the update. Rebuild containers, single-executable applications and appliances that bundle an affected runtime or library.\r\n\r\nReduce the exposure until the update is deployed. Reject requests with \"Content-Encoding: br\" at the reverse proxy, load balancer or WAF, case-insensitively and including lists such as \"gzip, br\". On Envoy and Istio, disable request decompression for Brotli.\r\n\r\nContact your edge provider about the status of the pathing (Fastly \u002F Plateform.sh)\r\n\r\nReview outbound calls. List the features that fetch content from servers you do not control, and patch the services that host them first.",[16],{"id":21,"title":22,"summary":23,"published_at":24,"severity":13,"vendor":25,"products":26},263,"Oracle Java SE JSSE - Improper Access Control & Unauthorized Data Access & Unauthorized Data Modification","Oracle Java SE is the Java runtime and development platform. Its JSSE (Java Secure Socket Extension) component provides TLS\u002FSSL for secure network communication. Oracle GraalVM is a JDK distribution based on the same platform.\r\n\r\nCVE-2026-91403\r\n\r\nA vulnerability in the JSSE component of Oracle Java SE, Oracle GraalVM for JDK and Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition can be exploited by an unauthenticated attacker with network access over multiple protocols. A successful attack can give unauthorized access to critical data and allow unauthorized creation, deletion or modification of data. It can also affect sandboxed Java Web Start applications and applets that run untrusted code. The record lists the weakness as CWE-284 (Improper Access Control) in the CISA ADP entry, while another database lists CWE-295. The record lists these affected versions:\r\n- Oracle Java SE: 8u511, 8u511-perf, 11.0.33, 17.0.21, 21.0.13, 25.0.5, 27.0.1.\r\n- Oracle GraalVM for JDK: 17.0.21, 21.0.13.\r\n- Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition: 21.3.20.\r\n\r\nOracle published an out-of-cycle Security Alert on October 21, 2026. One secondary source says the fix makes Java distrust eight compromised intermediate CA certificates shipped with the JDK. The Oracle-focused sources do not confirm this root cause, so check it against the Oracle advisory. CISA ADP SSVC data shows Exploitation: none, Automatable: yes, Technical Impact: total. The CVE is not in the CISA KEV catalog as of October 22, 2026, and its EPSS score is below 1%.","2026-10-23T14:12:32.871954Z","Oracle",[27,28,29],"Oracle Java SE","Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition","Oracle GraalVM for JDK",{"id":31,"cve_id":32,"euvd_id":33,"summary":34,"published":35,"cvss_data":36,"is_remote":47,"cwes":48,"cpes":49,"technologies":51,"references":53,"score":59,"epss_score":60,"epss_percentile":61,"is_kev":47,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":62,"attack_mappings":68,"exploits":75},305216,"CVE-2022-49194","EUVD-2022-55032","In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnet: bcmgenet: Use stronger register read\u002Fwrites to assure ordering\n\nGCC12 appears to be much smarter about its dependency tracking and is\naware that the relaxed variants are just normal loads and stores and\nthis is causing problems like:\n\n[  210.074549] ------------[ cut here ]------------\n[  210.079223] NETDEV WATCHDOG: enabcm6e4ei0 (bcmgenet): transmit queue 1 timed out\n[  210.086717] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at net\u002Fsched\u002Fsch_generic.c:529 dev_watchdog+0x234\u002F0x240\n[  210.095044] Modules linked in: genet(E) nft_fib_inet nft_fib_ipv4 nft_fib_ipv6 nft_fib nft_reject_inet nf_reject_ipv4 nf_reject_ipv6 nft_reject nft_ct nft_chain_nat]\n[  210.146561] ACPI CPPC: PCC check channel failed for ss: 0. ret=-110\n[  210.146927] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper\u002F1 Tainted: G            E     5.17.0-rc7G12+ #58\n[  210.153226] CPPC Cpufreq:cppc_scale_freq_workfn: failed to read perf counters\n[  210.161349] Hardware name: Raspberry Pi Foundation Raspberry Pi 4 Model B\u002FRaspberry Pi 4 Model B, BIOS EDK2-DEV 02\u002F08\u002F2022\n[  210.161353] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)\n[  210.161358] pc : dev_watchdog+0x234\u002F0x240\n[  210.161364] lr : dev_watchdog+0x234\u002F0x240\n[  210.161368] sp : ffff8000080a3a40\n[  210.161370] x29: ffff8000080a3a40 x28: ffffcd425af87000 x27: ffff8000080a3b20\n[  210.205150] x26: ffffcd425aa00000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffcd425af8ec08\n[  210.212321] x23: 0000000000000100 x22: ffffcd425af87000 x21: ffff55b142688000\n[  210.219491] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff55b1426884c8 x18: ffffffffffffffff\n[  210.226661] x17: 64656d6974203120 x16: 0000000000000001 x15: 6d736e617274203a\n[  210.233831] x14: 2974656e65676d63 x13: ffffcd4259c300d8 x12: ffffcd425b07d5f0\n[  210.241001] x11: 00000000ffffffff x10: ffffcd425b07d5f0 x9 : ffffcd4258bdad9c\n[  210.248171] x8 : 00000000ffffdfff x7 : 000000000000003f x6 : 0000000000000000\n[  210.255341] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000001000\n[  210.262511] x2 : 0000000000001000 x1 : 0000000000000005 x0 : 0000000000000044\n[  210.269682] Call trace:\n[  210.272133]  dev_watchdog+0x234\u002F0x240\n[  210.275811]  call_timer_fn+0x3c\u002F0x15c\n[  210.279489]  __run_timers.part.0+0x288\u002F0x310\n[  210.283777]  run_timer_softirq+0x48\u002F0x80\n[  210.287716]  __do_softirq+0x128\u002F0x360\n[  210.291392]  __irq_exit_rcu+0x138\u002F0x140\n[  210.295243]  irq_exit_rcu+0x1c\u002F0x30\n[  210.298745]  el1_interrupt+0x38\u002F0x54\n[  210.302334]  el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18\u002F0x24\n[  210.306445]  el1h_64_irq+0x7c\u002F0x80\n[  210.309857]  arch_cpu_idle+0x18\u002F0x2c\n[  210.313445]  default_idle_call+0x4c\u002F0x140\n[  210.317470]  cpuidle_idle_call+0x14c\u002F0x1a0\n[  210.321584]  do_idle+0xb0\u002F0x100\n[  210.324737]  cpu_startup_entry+0x30\u002F0x8c\n[  210.328675]  secondary_start_kernel+0xe4\u002F0x110\n[  210.333138]  __secondary_switched+0x94\u002F0x98\n\nThe assumption when these were relaxed seems to be that device memory\nwould be mapped non reordering, and that other constructs\n(spinlocks\u002Fetc) would provide the barriers to assure that packet data\nand in memory rings\u002Fqueues were ordered with respect to device\nregister reads\u002Fwrites. This itself seems a bit sketchy, but the real\nproblem with GCC12 is that it is moving the actual reads\u002Fwrites around\nat will as though they were independent operations when in truth they\nare not, but the compiler can't know that. When looking at the\nassembly dumps for many of these routines its possible to see very\nclean, but not strictly in program order operations occurring as the\ncompiler would be free to do if these weren't actually register\nreads\u002Fwrite operations.\n\nIts possible to suppress the timeout with a liberal bit of dma_mb()'s\nsprinkled around but the device still seems unable to reliably\nsend\u002Freceive data. A better plan is to use the safer readl\u002Fwritel\neverywhere.\n\nSince this partially reverts an older commit, which notes the use of\nthe relaxed variants for performance reasons. I would suggest that\nany performance problems \n---truncated---","2025-02-26T07:00:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":44,"userInteraction":44,"attackComplexity":45,"availabilityImpact":46,"privilegesRequired":45,"confidentialityImpact":44},"UNCHANGED","3.1",5.5,"LOCAL","MEDIUM","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:L\u002FAC:L\u002FPR:L\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:N\u002FI:N\u002FA:H","NONE","LOW","HIGH",false,[],[50],"cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[52],"Linux Linux Kernel",[54,55,56,57,58],"https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F06d836801cd82ded282aaf9e888ff9e7e4a88b91","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F1d717816189fd68f9e089cf89ed1f7327d2c2e71","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F8d3ea3d402db94b61075617e71b67459a714a502","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fb26091a02093104259ca64aeca73601e56160d62","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Ff49769b462f282477ca801cf648f875b1c5b59db",0.28,0.00693,0.5262,{"timestamp":6,"automatable":63,"tech_impact":64,"exploitation":65,"cisa_decision":66,"cisa_remediation_timeline":67},"no","partial","none",{},"FSU",[69],{"name":70,"source":71,"tactics":72,"technique_id":74},"Exploitation for Privilege Escalation","attack_vector",[73],"privilege-escalation","T1068",[],{"count":77,"next":78,"previous":6,"results":79},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[80,88,96],{"id":81,"title":82,"summary":83,"published_at":84,"type":85,"link":86,"image_url":87},30,"PHP2Shell: Two Critical RCE Flaws in PHP (CVSS 9.2)","Unauthenticated code execution demonstrated on WordPress, Drupal and Joomla, and reproduced in our lab. Patched versions and steps to take today.","2026-10-22T00:00:00Z","cve","https:\u002F\u002Fpatrowl.io\u002Fen\u002Fblog\u002Fphp2shell-2-critical-rce-flaws-php-cvss-9-2","https:\u002F\u002Fpatrowl.io\u002Fmedia\u002Fsite\u002Fc0615c4ee6-1792684469\u002Fphp2shell-2-critical-rce-flaws-php-cvss-9-2.png",{"id":89,"title":90,"summary":91,"published_at":92,"type":93,"link":94,"image_url":95},29,"Manage External Security Across All Your Entities","Centralize the management of entities, users and external security resources while maintaining strict data isolation with Patrowl.","2026-09-15T00:00:00Z","security tips","https:\u002F\u002Fpatrowl.io\u002Fen\u002Fblog\u002Fmulti-entity-external-security-how-structure-governance-group-level","https:\u002F\u002Fpatrowl.io\u002Fmedia\u002Fsite\u002F8b2c0cc5eb-1789551467\u002Fvisu_1_multi_tenancy_dark_1x.webp",{"id":97,"title":98,"summary":99,"published_at":100,"type":101,"link":102,"image_url":103},28,"Will AI Become the Next Hacker? Bruce Schneier Answers at DEF CON 34","Tax law, finance, legislation: Bruce Schneier shows how AI could hack human rule systems just as easily as it hacks software.","2026-09-14T00:00:00Z","hacks","https:\u002F\u002Fpatrowl.io\u002Fen\u002Fblog\u002Fbruce-schneier-def-con-34","https:\u002F\u002Fpatrowl.io\u002Fmedia\u002Fsite\u002F5c616d9db4-1789462598\u002Fai-hacker.en.png"]