EchelonGraph verdictMonitorThe upstream fix is not in a release yet: until the release ships, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, then apply it (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 6.2Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
An upstream fix is merged but not yet released — mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation) until the release ships, then apply it.
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in MISP due to form-security and CSRF protections being disabled based on whether an incoming request was identified as a REST request.
MISP's REST detection can be influenced by request properties such as the URL suffix or the HTTP Accept header. Because Accept: application/json can be supplied by a cross-origin page without requiring a CORS preflight, an attacker could cause a request originating from another website to be treated as REST traffic. MISP would consequently disable its normal form-security and CSRF validation even though the request was authenticated using the victim's existing browser session.
An unauthenticated remote attacker could exploit this behavior by convincing an authenticated MISP user to visit or interact with a malicious web page. The attacker's page could then issue crafted requests to susceptible state-changing MISP endpoints using the victim's privileges. Depending on the permissions of the victim and the targeted endpoint, this could allow unauthorized modification, creation, publication, or removal of data and other state changes.
The vulnerability originates from granting the form-security exemption based on _isRest() rather than on the authentication mechanism used by the request. The patch changes this behavior so that CSRF and form-security exemptions are granted only when the request actually carries a MISP API key. Session-authenticated REST-style requests remain subject to CSRF protection.
The fix also introduces support for transmitting CSRF tokens through the X-CSRF-Token header for legitimate same-origin AJAX requests. Such a header cannot normally be attached by a cross-origin page without triggering a CORS preflight, preventing it from being used to reproduce the original attack.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.2 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
An upstream fix is merged but not yet in a tagged release. Until the release ships, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, then apply it.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it