[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2024-46734":30,"landing-articles":87},{"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":50,"technologies":57,"references":59,"score":66,"epss_score":67,"epss_percentile":68,"is_kev":47,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":69,"attack_mappings":79,"exploits":86},28956,"CVE-2024-46734","EUVD-2024-41995","In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbtrfs: fix race between direct IO write and fsync when using same fd\n\nIf we have 2 threads that are using the same file descriptor and one of\nthem is doing direct IO writes while the other is doing fsync, we have a\nrace where we can end up either:\n\n1) Attempt a fsync without holding the inode's lock, triggering an\n   assertion failures when assertions are enabled;\n\n2) Do an invalid memory access from the fsync task because the file private\n   points to memory allocated on stack by the direct IO task and it may be\n   used by the fsync task after the stack was destroyed.\n\nThe race happens like this:\n\n1) A user space program opens a file descriptor with O_DIRECT;\n\n2) The program spawns 2 threads using libpthread for example;\n\n3) One of the threads uses the file descriptor to do direct IO writes,\n   while the other calls fsync using the same file descriptor.\n\n4) Call task A the thread doing direct IO writes and task B the thread\n   doing fsyncs;\n\n5) Task A does a direct IO write, and at btrfs_direct_write() sets the\n   file's private to an on stack allocated private with the member\n   'fsync_skip_inode_lock' set to true;\n\n6) Task B enters btrfs_sync_file() and sees that there's a private\n   structure associated to the file which has 'fsync_skip_inode_lock' set\n   to true, so it skips locking the inode's VFS lock;\n\n7) Task A completes the direct IO write, and resets the file's private to\n   NULL since it had no prior private and our private was stack allocated.\n   Then it unlocks the inode's VFS lock;\n\n8) Task B enters btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging(), then the\n   assertion that checks the inode's VFS lock is held fails, since task B\n   never locked it and task A has already unlocked it.\n\nThe stack trace produced is the following:\n\n   assertion failed: inode_is_locked(&inode->vfs_inode), in fs\u002Fbtrfs\u002Fordered-data.c:983\n   ------------[ cut here ]------------\n   kernel BUG at fs\u002Fbtrfs\u002Fordered-data.c:983!\n   Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI\n   CPU: 9 PID: 5072 Comm: worker Tainted: G     U     OE      6.10.5-1-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed 69f48d427608e1c09e60ea24c6c55e2ca1b049e8\n   Hardware name: Acer Predator PH315-52\u002FCovini_CFS, BIOS V1.12 07\u002F28\u002F2020\n   RIP: 0010:btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f\u002F0x42 [btrfs]\n   Code: 50 d6 86 c0 e8 (...)\n   RSP: 0018:ffff9e4a03dcfc78 EFLAGS: 00010246\n   RAX: 0000000000000054 RBX: ffff9078a9868e98 RCX: 0000000000000000\n   RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff907dce4a7800 RDI: ffff907dce4a7800\n   RBP: ffff907805518800 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff9e4a03dcfb38\n   R10: ffff9e4a03dcfb30 R11: 0000000000000003 R12: ffff907684ae7800\n   R13: 0000000000000001 R14: ffff90774646b600 R15: 0000000000000000\n   FS:  00007f04b96006c0(0000) GS:ffff907dce480000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000\n   CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033\n   CR2: 00007f32acbfc000 CR3: 00000001fd4fa005 CR4: 00000000003726f0\n   Call Trace:\n    \u003CTASK>\n    ? __die_body.cold+0x14\u002F0x24\n    ? die+0x2e\u002F0x50\n    ? do_trap+0xca\u002F0x110\n    ? do_error_trap+0x6a\u002F0x90\n    ? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f\u002F0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]\n    ? exc_invalid_op+0x50\u002F0x70\n    ? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f\u002F0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]\n    ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a\u002F0x20\n    ? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f\u002F0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]\n    ? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f\u002F0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]\n    btrfs_sync_file+0x21a\u002F0x4d0 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]\n    ? __seccomp_filter+0x31d\u002F0x4f0\n    __x64_sys_fdatasync+0x4f\u002F0x90\n    do_syscall_64+0x82\u002F0x160\n    ? do_futex+0xcb\u002F0x190\n    ? __x64_sys_futex+0x10e\u002F0x1d0\n    ? switch_fpu_return+0x4f\u002F0xd0\n    ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x72\u002F0x220\n    ? do_syscall_64+0x8e\u002F0x160\n    ? syscall_exit_to_user_mod\n---truncated---","2024-09-18T08:15:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":44,"userInteraction":44,"attackComplexity":45,"availabilityImpact":45,"privilegesRequired":46,"confidentialityImpact":44},"UNCHANGED","3.1",4.7,"LOCAL","MEDIUM","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:L\u002FAC:H\u002FPR:L\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:N\u002FI:N\u002FA:H","NONE","HIGH","LOW",false,[49],"CWE-362",[51,52,53,54,55,56],"cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.11:rc6:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.11:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.11:rc5:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.11:rc3:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.11:rc4:*:*:*:*:*:*",[58],"Linux Linux Kernel",[60,61,62,63,64,65],"https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F01681aa609b5f110502f56c4e3b2938efcf4a5bc","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F7b5595f33c3c273613b590892a578d78186bb400","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fcd3087582e4fa36e89be4e6f859e75a4400292b4","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fcd9253c23aedd61eb5ff11f37a36247cd46faf86","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fd116a0b0e02f395cedfb8c725bd67480aa7c428c","https:\u002F\u002Flists.debian.org\u002Fdebian-lts-announce\u002F2025\u002F01\u002Fmsg00001.html",0.24,0.00189,0.08407,{"timestamp":70,"automatable":71,"tech_impact":72,"exploitation":73,"cisa_decision":74,"cisa_remediation_timeline":78},"2024-09-29T14:53:19.995108Z","no","partial","none",{"vector":75,"decision":76,"priority":77},"CISAv1\u002FE:N\u002FA:N\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T05:37:56.748194\u002F","track_star","medium","60D",[80],{"name":81,"source":82,"tactics":83,"technique_id":85},"Exploitation for Privilege Escalation","attack_vector",[84],"privilege-escalation","T1068",[],{"count":88,"next":89,"previous":6,"results":90},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[91,99,107],{"id":92,"title":93,"summary":94,"published_at":95,"type":96,"link":97,"image_url":98},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":100,"title":101,"summary":102,"published_at":103,"type":104,"link":105,"image_url":106},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":108,"title":109,"summary":110,"published_at":111,"type":112,"link":113,"image_url":114},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"]