[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2024-32884":30,"landing-articles":86},{"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":51,"technologies":55,"references":59,"score":64,"epss_score":65,"epss_percentile":66,"is_kev":67,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":68,"attack_mappings":78,"exploits":85},57735,"CVE-2024-32884","EUVD-2024-1168","gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username\n\n### Summary\n\n`gix-transport` does not check the username part of a URL for text that the external `ssh` program would interpret as an option. A specially crafted clone URL can smuggle options to SSH. The possibilities are syntactically limited, but if a malicious clone URL is used by an application whose current working directory contains a malicious file, arbitrary code execution occurs.\n\n### Details\n\nThis is related to the patched vulnerability https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FByron\u002Fgitoxide\u002Fpull\u002F1032, `gix-transport` checks the host and path portions of a URL for text that has a `-` in a position that will cause `ssh` to interpret part of all of the URL as an option argument. But it does not check the non-mandatory username portion of the URL.\n\nAs in Git, when an address is a URL of the form `ssh:\u002F\u002Fusername@hostname\u002Fpath`, or when it takes the special form `username@hostname:dirs\u002Frepo`, this is treated as an SSH URL. `gix-transport` will replace some characters in `username` with their `%`-based URL encodings, but otherwise passes `username@hostname` as an argument to the external `ssh` command. This happens even if `username` begins with a hyphen. In that case, `ssh` treats that argument as an option argument, and attempts to interpret and honor it as a sequence of one or more options possibly followed by an operand for the last option.\n\nThis is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:\n\n- The difficulty of forming an option argument `ssh` accepts, given that characters such as `=`, `\u002F`, and `\\`, are URL-encoded, `:` is removed, and the argument passed to `ssh` contains the `@` sign and subsequent host identifier, which in an effective attack must be parseable as a suffix of the operand passed to the last option.\n\n  The inability to include a literal `=` prevents the use of `-oNAME=VALUE` (e.g., `-oProxyCommand=payload`). The inability to include a literal `\u002F` or `\\` prevents smuggling in a path operand residing outside the current working directory, incuding on Windows. (Although a `~` character may be smuggled in, `ssh` does not perform its own tilde expansion, so it does not form an absolute path.)\n\n- The difficulty, or perhaps impossibility, of completing a connection (other than when arbitrary code execution has been achieved). This complicates or altogether prevents the use of options such as `-A` and `-X` together with a connection to a real but malicious server. The reason a connection cannot generally be completed when exploiting this vulnerability is that, because the argument `gix-transport` intends as a URL is treated as an option argument, `ssh` treats the subsequent non-option argument `git-upload-pack` as the host instead of the command, but it is not a valid host name.\n\n  Although `ssh` supports aliases for hosts, even if `git-upload-pack` could be made an alias, that is made difficult by the URL-encoding transformation.\n\nHowever, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named `ssh` configuration file to be placed in the current working directory can smuggle in an `-F` option referencing the file, and this allows arbitrary command execution.\n\nThis scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration.\n\nOther avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the `-E` option can be smuggled to create or append to a file in the current directory (or its target, if it is a symlink). There may also be other significant ways to exploit this that have not yet been discovered, or that would arise with new options in future versions of `ssh`.\n\n### PoC\n\nTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named `configfile@example.com`, of the form\n\n```text\nProxyCommand payload\n```\n\nwhere `payload` is a command with an observable side effect. On Unix-like systems, this could be `date | tee vulnerable` or an `xdg-open`, `open`, or other command command to launch a graphical application. On Windows, this could be the name of a graphical application already in the search path, such as `calc.exe`.\n\n(Although the syntax permitted in the value of `ProxyCommand` may vary by platform, this is not limited to running commands in the current directory. That limitation only applies to paths directly smuggled in the username, not to the contents of a separate malicious configuration file. Arbitrary other settings may be specified in `configfile@example.com` as well.)\n\nThen run:\n\n```sh\ngix clone 'ssh:\u002F\u002F-Fconfigfile@example.com\u002Fabc'\n```\n\nOr:\n\n```sh\ngix clone -- '-Fconfigfile@example.com:abc\u002Fdef'\n```\n\n(The `--` is required to ensure that `gix` is really passing the argument as a URL for use in `gix-transport`, rather than interpreting it as an option itself, which would not necessarily be a vulnerability.)\n\nIn either case, the payload specified in `configfile@example.com` runs, and its side effect can be observed.\n\nOther cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file `errors@example.com`, or to create or append to its target if it is a symlink:\n\n```sh\ngix clone 'ssh:\u002F\u002F-Eerrors@example.com\u002Fabc'\n```\n\n```sh\ngix clone -- '-Eerrors@example.com:abc\u002Fdef'\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nAs in https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the `gix-transport` library.\n\nUsers who use applications that make use of `gix-transport` are potentially vulnerable, especially:\n\n- On repositories with submodules that are automatically added, depending how the application manages submodules.\n- When operating on other repositories from inside an untrusted repository.\n- When reviewing contributions from untrusted developers by checking out a branch from an untrusted fork and performing clones from that location.\n","2024-04-15T19:33:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":44,"userInteraction":45,"attackComplexity":46,"availabilityImpact":44,"privilegesRequired":44,"confidentialityImpact":46},"UNCHANGED","3.1",6.4,"NETWORK","MEDIUM","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:N\u002FAC:H\u002FPR:L\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:H\u002FI:L\u002FA:L","LOW","NONE","HIGH",true,[49,50],"CWE-77","CWE-88",[52,53,54],"cpe:2.3:a:gix:gix:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:a:gitoxide:gitoxide:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:a:gix-transport:gix-transport:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[56,57,58],"Gix Gix","Gitoxide Gitoxide","Gix-Transport Gix-Transport",[60,61,62,63],"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FByron\u002Fgitoxide\u002Fsecurity\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh","https:\u002F\u002Frustsec.org\u002Fadvisories\u002FRUSTSEC-2024-0335.html","https:\u002F\u002Fnvd.nist.gov\u002Fvuln\u002Fdetail\u002FCVE-2024-32884","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FByron\u002Fgitoxide",0.52,0.00514,0.43495,false,{"timestamp":69,"automatable":70,"tech_impact":71,"exploitation":72,"cisa_decision":73,"cisa_remediation_timeline":77},"2024-05-01T17:14:15.110574Z","no","total","poc",{"vector":74,"decision":75,"priority":76},"CISAv1\u002FE:P\u002FA:N\u002FT:T\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T03:10:14.763949\u002F","attend","medium","14D",[79],{"name":80,"source":81,"tactics":82,"technique_id":84},"Exploit Public-Facing Application","attack_vector",[83],"initial-access","T1190",[],{"count":87,"next":88,"previous":6,"results":89},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[90,98,106],{"id":91,"title":92,"summary":93,"published_at":94,"type":95,"link":96,"image_url":97},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":99,"title":100,"summary":101,"published_at":102,"type":103,"link":104,"image_url":105},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":107,"title":108,"summary":109,"published_at":110,"type":111,"link":112,"image_url":113},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"]