[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"cve-CVE-2026-74700":3,"landing-trending":51,"landing-articles":77},{"id":4,"cve_id":5,"euvd_id":6,"summary":7,"published":8,"cvss_data":9,"is_remote":19,"cwes":20,"cpes":21,"technologies":22,"references":23,"score":29,"epss_score":30,"epss_percentile":31,"is_kev":19,"cisa_kev_date_added":32,"cisa_kev_due_date":32,"cisa_ssvc":33,"attack_mappings":43,"exploits":50},380445,"CVE-2026-74700","EUVD-2026-64387","In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnet\u002Fsched: cls_api: Always acquire rtnl_lock when destroying locked classifiers\n\nAnother challenge with unlocked filters.\nThere is a short window in tc_new_tfilter where a tcf_proto can be found\nand briefly referenced by a totally unrelated, unlocked classifier's request\nand cause a race.\n\nFeng created a poc which created this race with two threads, one creating a\nu32 filter and other a flower filter in the same chain\u002Fprio:\n\n1. Both threads enter tc_new_tfilter, both find the chain empty, both\n   drop filter_chain_lock\n2. u32 finishes tcf_proto_create(\"u32\") first, calls\n   tcf_chain_tp_insert_unique() -> inserts u32_tp into the chain\n3. flower finishes tcf_proto_create(\"flower\") later, calls\n   tcf_chain_tp_insert_unique() -> tcf_chain_tp_find() now sees u32_tp\n   already there, takes a reference on it, destroys flower's own tp_new\n   and returns u32_tp to the caller.\n\nFlower then hits the kind mismatch check (because it requested for kind\n\"flower\" but tp->ops->kind is \"u32\") and goes through the errout path\nwhich calls tcf_proto_put() on u32_tp. If the u32 thread has already\ngone through its own errout (its change() call failed on the PoC's empty\noptions) and dropped its create and insert refs, flower's put is the\nlast one and drops u32_tp's refcnt to zero.\n\nAt this point tp->ops->destroy() runs in a context that never took\nrtnl_lock. When that happens, it might cause a UAF like the following\n(illustrated by the PoC):\n\n[  +0.000710] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in u32_init (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_u32.c:393)\n[  +0.000281] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888120022f00 by task poc_feng_xue\u002F524\n\n  Call Trace:\n   u32_init (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_u32.c:393)\n   tc_new_tfilter (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_api.c:2378)\n\n  Allocated by task 526:\n   u32_init (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_u32.c:378)\n   tc_new_tfilter (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_api.c:2378)\n\n  Freed by task 522:\n   kfree\n   u32_destroy (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_u32.c:662)\n   tcf_proto_destroy (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_api.c:446)\n   tcf_proto_put (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_api.c:459)\n   tc_new_tfilter (net\u002Fsched\u002Fcls_api.c:2459)\n\nFix this by having tcf_proto_destroy() take rtnl_lock around\ntp->ops->destroy() for locked classifiers whenever rtnl is not held.\n\nTo explain why I used a temp variable \"not_lockless\" I'd like to point to a\nsemi-related note on rtnl_held vs TCF_PROTO_OPS_DOIT_UNLOCKED (adding here\nfor future cleanup if deemed necessary):\nThe rtnl_held parameter and the TCF_PROTO_OPS_DOIT_UNLOCKED flag are\nredundant sources of truth for whether rtnl_lock is held. Among the nine\nclassifier destroy(..rtnl_held..) callbacks, only flower consults the\nrtnl_held parameter which it propagates to tc_setup_cb_destroy()\nand tc_setup_cb_call(). The other eight (u32, flow, bpf, cgroup, route, basic,\nfw, mall) ignore it entirely;-> those that call tc_setup_cb_destroy()\n(u32, bpf, mall) hardcode true always instead of forwarding the parameter.\n\nA future cleanup should remove the rtnl_held parameter from the destroy callback\nsignature entirely and have callers rely solely on their knowledge whether\nthey are running in an unlocked context.","2026-08-22T16:16:00Z",{"cvss_v3.1":10},{"scope":11,"version":12,"baseScore":13,"attackVector":14,"baseSeverity":15,"vectorString":16,"integrityImpact":15,"userInteraction":17,"attackComplexity":18,"availabilityImpact":15,"privilegesRequired":18,"confidentialityImpact":15},"UNCHANGED","3.1",7.8,"LOCAL","HIGH","CVSS:3.1\u002FAV:L\u002FAC:L\u002FPR:L\u002FUI:N\u002FS:U\u002FC:H\u002FI:H\u002FA:H","NONE","LOW",false,[],[],[],[24,25,26,27,28],"https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002F34e77d8e3570f9df3952496ddb402833695662fd","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fa347304b2ca1a5377d5bd2d8a72e4b4f12afe648","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fa81f9c44d87fb59d99fce72e29e02cab3a49a1c3","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fb648c8a56531aeabd1c14f6b5cf1891e269b3756","https:\u002F\u002Fgit.kernel.org\u002Fstable\u002Fc\u002Fd6222af7274f08e7a1848131dc30319993d8f377",0.39,0.00125,0.02191,null,{"timestamp":34,"automatable":35,"tech_impact":36,"exploitation":37,"cisa_decision":38,"cisa_remediation_timeline":42},"2026-10-16T19:14:51.766758Z","no","total","none",{"vector":39,"decision":40,"priority":41},"CISAv1\u002FE:N\u002FA:N\u002FT:T\u002FM:H\u002F2026-10-26T02:31:08.864638\u002F","track_star","medium","14D",[44],{"name":45,"source":46,"tactics":47,"technique_id":49},"Exploitation for Privilege Escalation","attack_vector",[48],"privilege-escalation","T1068",[],{"count":52,"next":53,"previous":32,"results":54},266,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Ftrending_attacks\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[55,64,67],{"id":56,"title":57,"summary":58,"published_at":59,"severity":60,"vendor":61,"products":62},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",[63],"brotli",{"id":52,"title":57,"summary":65,"published_at":59,"severity":60,"vendor":61,"products":66},"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.",[63],{"id":68,"title":69,"summary":70,"published_at":71,"severity":60,"vendor":72,"products":73},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",[74,75,76],"Oracle Java SE","Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition","Oracle GraalVM for JDK",{"count":78,"next":79,"previous":32,"results":80},26,"http:\u002F\u002Fweb:8606\u002Fapi\u002Farticles\u002F?page=2&page_size=3&sorted_by=-published_at",[81,89,97],{"id":82,"title":83,"summary":84,"published_at":85,"type":86,"link":87,"image_url":88},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":90,"title":91,"summary":92,"published_at":93,"type":94,"link":95,"image_url":96},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":98,"title":99,"summary":100,"published_at":101,"type":102,"link":103,"image_url":104},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"]