[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2025-58162":30,"landing-articles":85},{"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":54,"references":57,"score":62,"epss_score":63,"epss_percentile":64,"is_kev":65,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":66,"attack_mappings":76,"exploits":83},64723,"CVE-2025-58162","EUVD-2025-26368","MobSF Vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write (AR-Slip) via Absolute Path in .a Extraction\n\n### Summary\nThe vulnerability allows any user to overwrite any files available under the account privileges of the running process.\n\n### Details\nAs part of static analysis, iOS MobSF supports loading and parsing statically linked libraries `.a`. When parsing such archives, the code extracts the embedded objects to the file system in the working directory of the analysis. The problem is that the current implementation does not prohibit absolute file names inside `.a`. If an archive item has a name like \u002Fabs\u002Fpath\u002Fto\u002Ffile, the resulting path is constructed as Path(dst) \u002Fname; for absolute paths, this leads to a complete substitution of the destination directory: writing occurs directly to the specified absolute directory. the path (outside the working directory).\n\nThus, an authenticated user who uploaded a specially prepared `.a`, can write arbitrary files to any directory writable by the user of the MobSF process (for example, `\u002Ftmp`, neighboring directories inside `~\u002F.MobSF`, etc.).\n\nThe key reason is that checking the \"sliding\" paths only takes into account the presence of `..` (relative traversal), but does not take into account the absoluteness of the name and does not compare the normalized target path with the root directory of the extraction.\n\n### What exactly is vulnerable:\n**mobsf\u002FStaticAnalyzer\u002Fviews\u002Fcommon\u002Fshared_func.py**\nFunction for extracting objects from `.a` — ar_extract\n```\ndef ar_extract(checksum, src, dst):\n    \"\"\"Extract AR archive.\"\"\"\n    ...\n    ar = arpy.Archive(src)\n    ar.read_all_headers()\n    for a, val in ar.archived_files.items():\n        # Handle archive slip attacks\n        filtered = a.decode('utf-8', 'ignore')\n        if is_path_traversal(filtered):\n            msg = f'Zip slip detected. skipped extracting {filtered}'\n            logger.warning(msg)\n            append_scan_status(checksum, msg)\n            continue\n        out = Path(dst) \u002F filtered\n        out.write_bytes(val.read())\n```\n- The “slip” check is limited to is_path_traversal(filtered), which looks only for traversal patterns like `..`, `%2e%2e`, `%252e`.\n- Therefore, if the .a archive contains a member named '\u002Ftmp\u002Fpwned.txt', MobSF will write it to `\u002Ftmp\u002Fpwned.txt`, outside the intended working directory.\n\nar_extract is called from:\n**mobsf\u002FStaticAnalyzer\u002Fviews\u002Fcommon\u002Fa.py**\n```\ndef extract_n_get_files(checksum, src, dst):\n    dst = Path(dst) \u002F 'static_objects'\n    dst.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)\n    ar_extract(checksum, src, dst.as_posix())\n```\nThe expectation is that extraction happens only under the static_objects subdirectory, but absolute file names inside the `.a` break this assumption by directing writes outside that directory.\n\n### Attack Scenario\n1. The attacker creates a valid AR archive.a, in which the name of one of the members is the absolute path (as an example) \u002Fhome\u002Fmobsf\u002F.MobSF\u002Fdb.sqlite3. This is done by the standard AR (GNU long filename table) mechanism.\n2. It downloads this one via the web interface or the Static library loading API `.a` in MobSF.\n3. During the analysis, MobSF extracts the contents: due to the absolute name, the resulting path becomes \u002Fhome\u002Fmobsf\u002F.MobSF\u002Fdb.sqlite3, and the file is created\u002Foverwritten outside the working directory.\n4. In our case, the database file was overwritten, which caused MobSF to malfunction.\n### PoC\n1. Using the script, create a file with the payload. In the example, this is \"\u002Fhome\u002Fmobsf\u002F.MobSF\u002Fdb.sqlite3\"\n\u003Cimg width=\"786\" height=\"342\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fuser-attachments\u002Fassets\u002F0b7aee5c-6938-45cc-b668-9ad19f48c2c5\" \u002F>\n\n2. Connect to the container and verify that the db.sqlite3 file is a database. The scan has not been performed yet.\n\u003Cimg width=\"2535\" height=\"1507\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fuser-attachments\u002Fassets\u002F0cc92da7-91c0-453f-b1ed-080c9cfaa7f1\" \u002F>\n\n3. Upload the file for scanning and then update the page to get a server error.\n\u003Cimg width=\"2559\" height=\"1476\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fuser-attachments\u002Fassets\u002Fa5b84ace-b853-46ad-9e2e-afad59ed058a\" \u002F>\n\n4. Check the file structure after scanning and see that the file has been overwritten.\n\u003Cimg width=\"797\" height=\"213\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fuser-attachments\u002Fassets\u002F758ba3da-ae25-4c8d-bd8b-932573ca2306\" \u002F>\n\n5. There is a database error in the MobSF log.\n\u003Cimg width=\"1724\" height=\"1476\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fuser-attachments\u002Fassets\u002Fcd4211b1-2896-45e0-9934-9425b6035f2a\" \u002F>\n\n### Impact\n1. Arbitrary writing\u002Foverwriting of files within the rights of the MobSF process (for example, \u002Ftmp, directories with analysis results, logs).\n2. Distortion of analysis results (substitution of artifacts) and undermining the integrity of reports.\n3. Implementation of a system malfunction (overwriting the db.sqlite3 file).\n4. Compromise of the UI (if you have write rights to statics\u002Ftemplates): Stored XSS by overwriting the plug-in.js\u002Ftemplate.\n5. Potential escalation of risks with lax configuration of containers\u002Frights (for example, writing to system paths inside the container if the process is running with excessive privileges).\n\n\n### Mitigation\nReject absolute paths and normalize before writing. \n\n\n\n### **Please, assign all credits to Vasily Leshchenko (Solar AppSec)**","2025-09-02T17:12:00Z",{"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":45},"UNCHANGED","3.1",6.5,"NETWORK","MEDIUM","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:N\u002FAC:L\u002FPR:H\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:N\u002FI:H\u002FA:H","HIGH","NONE","LOW",true,[49],"CWE-22",[51,52,53],"cpe:2.3:a:opensecurity:mobile_security_framework:4.4.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:a:mobsf:mobsf:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:a:mobsf:mobsf:4.4.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[55,56],"Opensecurity Mobile Security Framework","Mobsf Mobsf",[58,59,60,61],"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FMobSF\u002FMobile-Security-Framework-MobSF\u002Fcommit\u002F7f3bc086c028c1b50889cab8a15f7b59b7abdaf9","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FMobSF\u002FMobile-Security-Framework-MobSF\u002Freleases\u002Ftag\u002Fv4.4.1","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FMobSF\u002FMobile-Security-Framework-MobSF\u002Fsecurity\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-9gh8-9r95-3fc3","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FMobSF\u002FMobile-Security-Framework-MobSF",0.68,0.00569,0.46841,false,{"timestamp":67,"automatable":68,"tech_impact":69,"exploitation":70,"cisa_decision":71,"cisa_remediation_timeline":75},"2025-09-02T13:28:52.324711Z","no","partial","poc",{"vector":72,"decision":73,"priority":74},"CISAv1\u002FE:P\u002FA:N\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T05:43:22.362042\u002F","track_star","medium","60D",[77],{"name":78,"source":79,"tactics":80,"technique_id":82},"Exploit Public-Facing Application","attack_vector",[81],"initial-access","T1190",[84],{"link":60},{"count":86,"next":87,"previous":6,"results":88},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[89,97,105],{"id":90,"title":91,"summary":92,"published_at":93,"type":94,"link":95,"image_url":96},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":98,"title":99,"summary":100,"published_at":101,"type":102,"link":103,"image_url":104},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":106,"title":107,"summary":108,"published_at":109,"type":110,"link":111,"image_url":112},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"]