[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2025-71183":30,"landing-articles":89},{"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":60,"references":62,"score":68,"epss_score":69,"epss_percentile":70,"is_kev":47,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":71,"attack_mappings":81,"exploits":88},87972,"CVE-2025-71183","EUVD-2025-206592","In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbtrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs\n\nAfter rename exchanging (either with the rename exchange operation or\nregular renames in multiple non-atomic steps) two inodes and at least\none of them is a directory, we can end up with a log tree that contains\nonly of the inodes and after a power failure that can result in an attempt\nto delete the other inode when it should not because it was not deleted\nbefore the power failure. In some case that delete attempt fails when\nthe target inode is a directory that contains a subvolume inside it, since\nthe log replay code is not prepared to deal with directory entries that\npoint to root items (only inode items).\n\n1) We have directories \"dir1\" (inode A) and \"dir2\" (inode B) under the\n   same parent directory;\n\n2) We have a file (inode C) under directory \"dir1\" (inode A);\n\n3) We have a subvolume inside directory \"dir2\" (inode B);\n\n4) All these inodes were persisted in a past transaction and we are\n   currently at transaction N;\n\n5) We rename the file (inode C), so at btrfs_log_new_name() we update\n   inode C's last_unlink_trans to N;\n\n6) We get a rename exchange for \"dir1\" (inode A) and \"dir2\" (inode B),\n   so after the exchange \"dir1\" is inode B and \"dir2\" is inode A.\n   During the rename exchange we call btrfs_log_new_name() for inodes\n   A and B, but because they are directories, we don't update their\n   last_unlink_trans to N;\n\n7) An fsync against the file (inode C) is done, and because its inode\n   has a last_unlink_trans with a value of N we log its parent directory\n   (inode A) (through btrfs_log_all_parents(), called from\n   btrfs_log_inode_parent()).\n\n8) So we end up with inode B not logged, which now has the old name\n   of inode A. At copy_inode_items_to_log(), when logging inode A, we\n   did not check if we had any conflicting inode to log because inode\n   A has a generation lower than the current transaction (created in\n   a past transaction);\n\n9) After a power failure, when replaying the log tree, since we find that\n   inode A has a new name that conflicts with the name of inode B in the\n   fs tree, we attempt to delete inode B... this is wrong since that\n   directory was never deleted before the power failure, and because there\n   is a subvolume inside that directory, attempting to delete it will fail\n   since replay_dir_deletes() and btrfs_unlink_inode() are not prepared\n   to deal with dir items that point to roots instead of inodes.\n\n   When that happens the mount fails and we get a stack trace like the\n   following:\n\n   [87.2314] BTRFS info (device dm-0): start tree-log replay\n   [87.2318] BTRFS critical (device dm-0): failed to delete reference to subvol, root 5 inode 256 parent 259\n   [87.2332] ------------[ cut here ]------------\n   [87.2338] BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -2)\n   [87.2346] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 638968 at fs\u002Fbtrfs\u002Finode.c:4345 __btrfs_unlink_inode+0x416\u002F0x440 [btrfs]\n   [87.2368] Modules linked in: btrfs loop dm_thin_pool (...)\n   [87.2470] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 638968 Comm: mount Tainted: G        W           6.18.0-rc7-btrfs-next-218+ #2 PREEMPT(full)\n   [87.2489] Tainted: [W]=WARN\n   [87.2494] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-0-gea1b7a073390-prebuilt.qemu.org 04\u002F01\u002F2014\n   [87.2514] RIP: 0010:__btrfs_unlink_inode+0x416\u002F0x440 [btrfs]\n   [87.2538] Code: c0 89 04 24 (...)\n   [87.2568] RSP: 0018:ffffc0e741f4b9b8 EFLAGS: 00010286\n   [87.2574] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9d3ec8a6cf60 RCX: 0000000000000000\n   [87.2582] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: ffffffff84ab45a1 RDI: 00000000ffffffff\n   [87.2591] RBP: ffff9d3ec8a6ef20 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffc0e741f4b840\n   [87.2599] R10: ffff9d45dc1fffa8 R11: 0000000000000003 R12: ffff9d3ee26d77e0\n   [87.2608] R13: ffffc0e741f4ba98 R14: ffff9d4458040800 R15: ffff9d44b6b7ca10\n   [87.2618] FS:  00007f7b9603a840(0000) GS:ffff9d4658982000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000\n   [87.\n---truncated---","2026-01-31T12:16:00Z",{"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,[],[50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59],"cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc4:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:4.6:-:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc7:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc8:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc5:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc6:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.19:rc3:*:*:*:*:*:*",[61],"Linux Linux Kernel",[63,64,65,66,67],"https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F0c2413c69129f6ce60157f7b53d9ba880260400b","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F7ba0b6461bc4edb3005ea6e00cdae189bcf908a5","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fa63998cd6687c14b160dccb0bbcf281b2eb0dab3","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fc7f0207db68d5a1b4af23acbef1a8e8ddc431ebb","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fd52af58dd463821c5c516aebb031a58934f696ea",0.28,0.00321,0.24858,{"timestamp":72,"automatable":73,"tech_impact":74,"exploitation":75,"cisa_decision":76,"cisa_remediation_timeline":80},"2026-10-16T15:06:04.374454Z","yes","partial","none",{"vector":77,"decision":78,"priority":79},"CISAv1\u002FE:N\u002FA:Y\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T05:14:58.768866\u002F","attend","medium","14D",[82],{"name":83,"source":84,"tactics":85,"technique_id":87},"Exploitation for Privilege Escalation","attack_vector",[86],"privilege-escalation","T1068",[],{"count":90,"next":91,"previous":6,"results":92},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[93,101,109],{"id":94,"title":95,"summary":96,"published_at":97,"type":98,"link":99,"image_url":100},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":102,"title":103,"summary":104,"published_at":105,"type":106,"link":107,"image_url":108},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":110,"title":111,"summary":112,"published_at":113,"type":114,"link":115,"image_url":116},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"]