CVE-2026-85538
09h05 +00:00
CVE 설명
MISP Attribute Deletion Authorization Bypass Allows Users Without Modify Permissions to Delete Attributes
An incorrect authorization vulnerability in MISP allowed authenticated users to delete attributes from events despite lacking the required perm_modify or perm_modify_org permissions. The affected attribute deletion paths relied on organization membership checks performed by MispAttribute::deleteAttribute() but did not consistently enforce MISP's event modification authorization rules. Consequently, a user belonging to the organization associated with an event could potentially delete individual attributes or perform bulk attribute deletion even when their assigned role was not authorized to modify the event. This created an inconsistency between attribute editing and deletion: editing an attribute correctly used MISP's ACL::canModifyEvent() authorization logic, whereas the affected deletion operations could bypass these permission checks. An authenticated attacker with access to an affected MISP instance and membership in the organization owning an event could exploit this flaw to remove attributes from that event, potentially causing unauthorized modification or loss of threat intelligence data. The patch introduces a common authorization check for all affected deletion paths. Before deletion, MISP now resolves the associated events and verifies that the current user is authorized to modify each event using the same authorization mechanism used by normal event and attribute modification operations.CVE 정보
관련 약점
| 약점 이름 | 출처 | |
|---|---|---|
| Incorrect Authorization The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. |
메트릭
| 메트릭 | 점수 | 심각도 | CVSS 벡터 | 출처 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V4.0 | 8.3 | HIGH |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:N
추가 정보
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Network The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). Attack Complexity This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. Low The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system. Attack Requirements This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. None The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. Low Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System. Sub Confidentiality Impact Negligible There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Integrity Impact High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System. Sub Availability Impact None There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Threat MetricsThe Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure. Supplemental MetricsSupplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer. |
