CVE-2026-103237
Opisy CVE
MISP: Nested Model Alias Key Bypasses Sanitization to Modify Cross-Tenant Rows
MISP contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its ORM save path. When a user submits data through various endpoints (attribute add/edit, event edit, free-text import, sighting capture, shadow attribute proposal, event report creation, object reference add, user admin edit), the application sanitizes the flat record by stripping the primary key and pinning the event_id or object_id to the caller's context. However, the underlying ORM's set() method gives priority to a nested key whose name matches the model alias and discards the outer scalar fields. An authenticated user with basic write permissions can exploit this by embedding a nested block under the model alias key inside their request. The sanitization logic (id removal, event_id pinning) is applied to the outer record, but the ORM binds to the inner record instead, which carries an attacker-chosen id and event_id. This allows the attacker to overwrite, re-parent, or soft-delete rows belonging to other organizations or events they have no read access to. Impact: - Cross-tenant data integrity compromise (attribute values rewritten, objects re-parented to attacker events, rows soft-deleted) - Affects multiple entity types: Attribute, Object, EventReport, Sighting, AttributeTag, ShadowAttribute - Requires only a low-privilege authenticated account with perm_add Affected versions: <2.5.48Rozwiązania CVE
Informacje CVE
Powiązane słabości
| Nazwa słabości | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. |
||
| Improper Input Validation The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly. |
Metryki
| Metryki | Wynik | Stopień zagrożenia | CVSS Wektor | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V4.0 | 8.3 | HIGH |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:N
More informations
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. None There is no impact to availability within 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. |
