[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2025-22069":30,"landing-articles":73},{"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":46,"cwes":47,"cpes":49,"technologies":51,"references":53,"score":56,"epss_score":57,"epss_percentile":58,"is_kev":46,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":59,"attack_mappings":65,"exploits":72},67630,"CVE-2025-22069","EUVD-2025-11219","In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nriscv: fgraph: Fix stack layout to match __arch_ftrace_regs argument of ftrace_return_to_handler\n\nNaresh Kamboju reported a \"Bad frame pointer\" kernel warning while\nrunning LTP trace ftrace_stress_test.sh in riscv. We can reproduce the\nsame issue with the following command:\n\n```\n$ cd \u002Fsys\u002Fkernel\u002Fdebug\u002Ftracing\n$ echo 'f:myprobe do_nanosleep%return args1=$retval' > dynamic_events\n$ echo 1 > events\u002Ffprobes\u002Fenable\n$ echo 1 > tracing_on\n$ sleep 1\n```\n\nAnd we can get the following kernel warning:\n\n[  127.692888] ------------[ cut here ]------------\n[  127.693755] Bad frame pointer: expected ff2000000065be50, received ba34c141e9594000\n[  127.693755]   from func do_nanosleep return to ffffffff800ccb16\n[  127.698699] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 129 at kernel\u002Ftrace\u002Ffgraph.c:755 ftrace_return_to_handler+0x1b2\u002F0x1be\n[  127.699894] Modules linked in:\n[  127.700908] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 129 Comm: sleep Not tainted 6.14.0-rc3-g0ab191c74642 #32\n[  127.701453] Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)\n[  127.701859] epc : ftrace_return_to_handler+0x1b2\u002F0x1be\n[  127.702032]  ra : ftrace_return_to_handler+0x1b2\u002F0x1be\n[  127.702151] epc : ffffffff8013b5e0 ra : ffffffff8013b5e0 sp : ff2000000065bd10\n[  127.702221]  gp : ffffffff819c12f8 tp : ff60000080853100 t0 : 6e00000000000000\n[  127.702284]  t1 : 0000000000000020 t2 : 6e7566206d6f7266 s0 : ff2000000065bd80\n[  127.702346]  s1 : ff60000081262000 a0 : 000000000000007b a1 : ffffffff81894f20\n[  127.702408]  a2 : 0000000000000010 a3 : fffffffffffffffe a4 : 0000000000000000\n[  127.702470]  a5 : 0000000000000000 a6 : 0000000000000008 a7 : 0000000000000038\n[  127.702530]  s2 : ba34c141e9594000 s3 : 0000000000000000 s4 : ff2000000065bdd0\n[  127.702591]  s5 : 00007fff8adcf400 s6 : 000055556dc1d8c0 s7 : 0000000000000068\n[  127.702651]  s8 : 00007fff8adf5d10 s9 : 000000000000006d s10: 0000000000000001\n[  127.702710]  s11: 00005555737377c8 t3 : ffffffff819d899e t4 : ffffffff819d899e\n[  127.702769]  t5 : ffffffff819d89a0 t6 : ff2000000065bb18\n[  127.702826] status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause: 0000000000000003\n[  127.703292] [\u003Cffffffff8013b5e0>] ftrace_return_to_handler+0x1b2\u002F0x1be\n[  127.703760] [\u003Cffffffff80017bce>] return_to_handler+0x16\u002F0x26\n[  127.704009] [\u003Cffffffff80017bb8>] return_to_handler+0x0\u002F0x26\n[  127.704057] [\u003Cffffffff800d3352>] common_nsleep+0x42\u002F0x54\n[  127.704117] [\u003Cffffffff800d44a2>] __riscv_sys_clock_nanosleep+0xba\u002F0x10a\n[  127.704176] [\u003Cffffffff80901c56>] do_trap_ecall_u+0x188\u002F0x218\n[  127.704295] [\u003Cffffffff8090cc3e>] handle_exception+0x14a\u002F0x156\n[  127.705436] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---\n\nThe reason is that the stack layout for constructing argument for the\nftrace_return_to_handler in the return_to_handler does not match the\n__arch_ftrace_regs structure of riscv, leading to unexpected results.","2025-04-16T15:16:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":42,"userInteraction":44,"attackComplexity":45,"availabilityImpact":42,"privilegesRequired":45,"confidentialityImpact":42},"UNCHANGED","3.1",7.8,"LOCAL","HIGH","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:L\u002FAC:L\u002FPR:L\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:H\u002FI:H\u002FA:H","NONE","LOW",false,[48],"CWE-668",[50],"cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[52],"Linux Linux Kernel",[54,55],"https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F67a5ba8f742f247bc83e46dd2313c142b1383276","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F78b39c587b8f6c69140177108f9c08a75b1c7c37",0.39,0.00212,0.11373,{"timestamp":6,"automatable":60,"tech_impact":61,"exploitation":62,"cisa_decision":63,"cisa_remediation_timeline":64},"no","partial","none",{},"FSU",[66],{"name":67,"source":68,"tactics":69,"technique_id":71},"Exploitation for Privilege Escalation","attack_vector",[70],"privilege-escalation","T1068",[],{"count":74,"next":75,"previous":6,"results":76},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[77,85,93],{"id":78,"title":79,"summary":80,"published_at":81,"type":82,"link":83,"image_url":84},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":86,"title":87,"summary":88,"published_at":89,"type":90,"link":91,"image_url":92},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":94,"title":95,"summary":96,"published_at":97,"type":98,"link":99,"image_url":100},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"]