We need answer as JSON only. Need synthesize. Need be careful with fields. Let's analyze input. CVE-2026-76461. Description: vulnerability in email parsing of Cisco AsyncOS for Cisco Secure Email Gateway allows unauthenticated remote attacker execute arbitrary commands root. Due insufficient validation email parsing logic. Attacker send crafted email containing malicious SQL statements through affected device. Success execute arbitrary SQL, leading to command execution root. CVSS 9.8 vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. CWE-89 SQL injection. KEV yes active. POC publicly available. SSVC: exploitation none? conflicting? Actually input says SSVC Exploitation: none, Automatable yes, Technical impact total. But KEV yes active. This is a dataset inconsistency. Need compare signals. Maybe SSVC from CISA? It says exploitation none but KEV yes. Need state conflict explicitly in risk/confidence. But exploitation status phrase must be "confirmed actively exploited (CISA KEV)" because KEV=YES. Even though SSVC says none. Could note SSVC inconsistent in risk assessment / confidence. CPE: cpe:2.3:a:cisco:cisco_secure_email:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe shows all versions? Affected products from EUVD list many versions. Tags: SQLi, Cisco, Cisco Secure Email. References include Cisco advisory. Need use. Product name: "Cisco Secure Email Gateway" or "Cisco Secure Email"? product_name 1-3 words. The description says Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Secure Email Gateway. Could choose "Cisco Secure Email Gateway" (4 words? Cisco Secure Email Gateway: 4 tokens. But "Cisco Secure Email" is 3 words and CPE product name. Product field examples. Use "Cisco Secure Email" maybe okay. But "specific product or service name" affected: Cisco Secure Email Gateway. That's 4 words. "1-3 words ONLY" — choose "Cisco Secure Email" (3 words). Maybe "Cisco AsyncOS" 2 words. But CPE is cisco_secure_email. Input tags include "Cisco Secure Email". Use "Cisco Secure Email". Need fields plain text string
Authentication bypass in ESPHome Device Builder (the esphome-device-builder package powering the `dashboard` subcommand of the ghcr.io/esphome/esphome container) versions before 1.0.12 silently disables dashboard authentication on upgrade for operators who had protected it with the legacy bare $USERNAME/$PASSWORD environment variables. A rename to $ESPHOME_USERNAME/$ESPHOME_PASSWORD (PR #265) dropped the old names with no fallback, so `using_password` becomes false and both the REST auth middleware and WebSocket login gate switch off, leaving the dashboard open to anyone who can reach its port. Because a compromised dashboard caller can compile arbitrary code and read/write config and data directories, this is effectively unauthenticated RCE; publicly available exploit/PoC code exists, though it is not in CISA KEV (SSVC exploitation: none).
Server-side request forgery and root-level code execution in IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 lets an authenticated user smuggle arbitrary Python through submitted flow components. Because the component validation scanner fails to block socket and urllib imports yet still returns "validated": true, attackers run code as UID=0 to steal AWS credentials via IMDSv1 SSRF, exfiltrate container files, and pivot to internal PostgreSQL and Redis services. Public exploit code exists, though the flaw is not on the CISA KEV list.
Stack-based buffer overflow in the D-Link DIR-823G router (firmware 1.0.2B05_20181207) lets a remote attacker corrupt stack memory via the HNAP1 SetStaticRouteSettings handler. The vulnerable strcpy call copies attacker-supplied PAddress, SubnetMask, and Gateway values without bounds checking, enabling denial of service and potential code execution on the device. Publicly available exploit code exists (VulDB and a GitHub advisory), though it is not listed in CISA KEV; EPSS was not provided.
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize all data. Need be careful fields plain strings. Need include risk_assessment with "gliwice" once. Need not copy description? Summary should original synthesis. Need include technical context, risk assessment, affected products, remediation, exploit scenario, exploitation conditions, attack chain, confidence notes, data quality flags, prevalence, prevalence basis, assessed_cvss_vector, assessed_cvss40_vector, assessed_cvss rationale. Let's parse CVE data. CVE-2026-90942: Casdoor through 4.4.0 fails to properly mask instance-wide built-in certificate private key in /api/get-certs and /api/get-cert endpoints, allowing organization administrators to retrieve it. Attackers can use exposed private key to forge JWT tokens for any user in any organization, including global administrators. CVSS 9.3? Vector CVSS 4.0: AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N. So network, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, vulnerable system confidentiality high integrity high availability none, subsequent system high high none. CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization. EPSS 0.21% percentile 11. POC publicly available. Reported by VulnCheck. Tags: Authentication Bypass, Casdoor. SSVC poc, automatable yes, total. ENISA EUVD etc. References include exploit writeup and vulncheck advisory. Need product_name: Casdoor. Summary: privilege escalation / authentication bypass? Need not start with "A vulnerability..." Specific impact verb and product. Could be "Private key exposure in Casdoor through 4.4.0 lets organization administrators retrieve the instance-wide JWT signing key and forge tokens for any user, including global administrators." Mention KEV? no KEV provided so not actively exploited. POC exists, EPSS low. Need say public exploit code exists, not active. Summary 2-3 sentences. Good. Technical_context: Casdoor is open-source IAM/auth platform. Endpoints /api/get-certs and /api/get-cert expose certificate info but fail to mas
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize. Need carefully follow. Need use data. Need not mention editorial note except risk assessment includes glwice lowercase naturally. Let's analyze. CVE-2026-16338: IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 arbitrary file write due improper validation of file paths. CVSS 9.9 AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H. CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path. EPSS 0.61% percentile 48. Patch available vendor. Reported by ibm. CPE ibm:datastage_on_cloud_pak_for_data:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* affected. Tags: Information Disclosure, IBM, Datastage On Cloud Pak For Data. SSVC Exploitation none, Automatable no, Technical Impact total. ENISA EUVD ID. References IBM support patch and NVD. Need fields product_name: "IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data" maybe 1-3 words? They ask 1-3 words ONLY specific product. "IBM DataStage" maybe 2 words? affected product is "IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data" 7 words. Need primary product maybe "IBM DataStage". But product_name should specific. Maybe "IBM DataStage" 2 words. Good. Summary: plain-language 2-3 sentences. Do not copy. Start with impact verb product. "Arbitrary file write in IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 allows remote authenticated attackers to write files outside intended directories due to improper file path validation." Then mention EPSS/likelihood and patch available. Active? KEV no POC no, so "no public exploit identified at time of analysis". But CVSS 9.9 high despite low EPSS. Mention EPSS 0.61% low. Maybe "Although CVSS 9.9 due scope/impact, EPSS 0.61% suggests low probability of near-term exploitation." Need not mention glwice here. Technical context: Explain CWE-73 path traversal? "IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data likely handles file operations where user-supplied paths are not sanitized, enabling arbitrary file write. CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path arises when software uses externally influenced path segments without validation, allowing path traversa
We need answer JSON only. Need carefully construct fields. Need follow instructions. Must use all data. Need risk_assessment include "inowroclaw" once naturally. Need not mention editorial note. Need product_name 1-3 words. Vulnerability affects Apple multiple OSes. Primary product? "Apple iOS" maybe? Description lists iOS/iPadOS/macOS/tvOS/visionOS/watchOS. Product_name could be "Apple iOS" but affects multiple. Maybe "Apple OS"? Need 1-3 words. CPE is apple:ios_and_ipados, macos, tvos, visionos, watchos. Product name: "Apple iOS" or "Apple Operating Systems"? Specific product? The issue maybe in some component? Description doesn't say. Use "Apple iOS" as primary? But multiple. Could use "Apple OS". Need 1-3 words. I'd choose "Apple OS" maybe broad. Or "Apple iOS" given first. Product_name "Apple OS" acceptable? It says specific product or service name, not vendor alone. Multiple products, pick primary. Apple iOS and iPadOS? The CPE includes ios_and_ipados. primary "Apple iOS". Need relevant. Summary: original synthesis. Mention out-of-bounds write in OS component, remote attacker can cause app termination or arbitrary code execution. Affected versions. KEV? Not provided. POC? Not provided. EPSS? Not provided. Need mention if actively exploited, if POC exists, EPSS risk if notable. Since no KEV, POC, EPSS absent. Say no public exploit identified at time of analysis; KEV absent. But do not start with "A vulnerability". Start with specific impact verb and product: "Remote code execution in Apple operating systems due to an out-of-bounds write..." But description says may cause unexpected app termination or arbitrary code execution. Use "Out-of-bounds write in Apple OS...". Need not copy description exactly. Say affects iOS/iPadOS before etc. Let's craft. Need technical_context: underlying technology/library/protocol involved. Not specified. Root cause CWE-787 Out-of-bounds write. Explain memory corruption. CPE exact affected products. Apple OSes. Need be educationa
We need answer JSON object only. Need synthesize. We need parse all data. Need be careful fields all strings. data_quality_flags array of objects (allowed nested? It says field JSON array, okay). We need produce valid JSON. Need follow precision rules. Let's analyze CVE-2026-57131. Input: CVE ID, Description: PraisonAI multi-agent teams system. Prior to 4.6.58, praisonai.jobs.server.create_app mounts praisonai.jobs.router.create_router under /api/v1/runs without authentication or per-job authorization. Network clients can submit attacker-controlled prompts and agent configuration, list and read jobs, stream results, cancel or delete other jobs, exposing service credentials and connected tool capabilities to unauthorized agent execution. Fixed in 4.6.58. CVSS 9.8 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H CWE-94 EPSS 0.97% percentile 60 Patch available from vendor Reported by GitHub_M CPE cpe:2.3:a:mervinpraison:praisonai:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* Tags: RCE, Code Injection, Praisonai SSVC: Exploitation poc, Automatable yes, Technical Impact total ENISA EUVD ID, affected versions ["PraisonAI < 4.6.48"] note conflict. Description says fixed 4.6.58; EUVD says <4.6.48. Advisory says vulnerable <4.6.59 fixed in 4.6.59? Wait GHSA package pip/praisonai vulnerable <4.6.59 fixed in 4.6.59. But CVE description and release tag v4.6.58 says fixed in 4.6.58. There is discrepancy: EUVD says affected <4.6.48, advisory says <4.6.59 fixed 4.6.59, release tag v4.6.58. Need mention in confidence notes risk? Maybe not data quality flags severity/version disagreements keep confidence notes only. But data_quality_flags: do not flag version disagreements. So keep in confidence_notes. References: [cveorg] None GHSA-fq2m... [cveorg] commit [cveorg] release tag v4.6.58 Source code evidence GHSA detailed. Need output: product_name: "PraisonAI" only. 1-3 words, specific product. Could "PraisonAI" is okay. summary: original synthesis. Need not copy description. Start with specific impact verb and product. E.
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize. We need use all data. Need plain strings. Need be careful precision rules. Need include risk_assessment with "malbork" once lowercase. Need not mention elsewhere. Need evaluate. CVE: PraisonAI UI missing auth OS command injection. CVSS 9.8 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H CWE-78. Patch available fixed 4.6.59. CPE cpe:2.3:a:mervinpraison:praisonai:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*. Tags: Command Injection, Praisonai, Mervinpraison. SSVC: Exploitation poc, Automatable yes, Technical impact total. EPSS? Not explicitly provided. KEV? Not provided, likely no. POC? SSVC exploitation poc says yes? Source says SSVC Exploitation: poc. Need use "publicly available exploit code exists" if POC yes but no KEV. KEV absent. Patch available. Need product_name: "PraisonAI" maybe 1-3 words. summary original synthesis. Start impact verb and product. E.g. "OS command execution in PraisonAI UI before 4.6.59 allows remote unauthenticated callers to execute arbitrary commands as the UI service account via the unauthenticated POST /api/mcp/connect endpoint, even if MCP handshake fails." Mention patch fixed. Public POC? We know SSVC poc. EPSS absent, no KEV. Need not mention EPSS if not. But maybe "no confirmed active exploitation" with KEV absence. Need use "publicly available exploit code exists" maybe from SSVC poc. summary says no active exploitation? Probably "No CISA KEV listing confirms active exploitation, but SSVC notes POC exists." technical_context: talk Python, AI multi-agent, Typer UI commands, aiui host app, Starlette? Endpoint passes command/args to StdioMCPClient local process. CWE-78 improper neutralization of special elements in OS command. CPE exact. Root cause no auth and command injection. Need educational. Mention default bind to 0.0.0.0. Mention fixed version. Mention commit changes? The commit diff includes security hardening for SSE security and path validation, but not directly auth? Actually fix 4.6.59 maybe released; commit adds web
We need answer in JSON only. Need synthesize. Need be precise. Let's analyze input. CVE-2026-77181 Apache Syncope. Description: Incorrect Authorization vulnerability. Administrator with ClientApp's update entitlement unable to perform related operation, while ClientApp's create entitlement checked both for create and update operations on ClientApp. Affects Syncope 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2. Upgrade to 4.0.8 / 4.1.3. CVSS 9.8 vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. CWE-863. Tags: Authentication Bypass, Apache. EPSS 0.48%, SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. References apache lists, euvd nvd, oss-security. Need produce fields. Product name: Apache Syncope. Summary: not copy description. Original synthesis. Need mention vulnerability: authorization logic inverted? Admin with update entitlement cannot update while create entitlement checked for both create and update. Leads incorrect authorization, potential privilege abuse? Wait description says "An administrator with ClientApp's update entitlement is unable to perform the related operation, while ClientApp's create entitlement is checked both for create and update operations on ClientApp." This sounds a logic flaw: anyone with create entitlement can update? Let's parse. In Apache Syncope, ClientApp entity has entitlements? Administrator with ClientApp update entitlement can't update; create entitlement is checked both for create and update. So users with only create entitlement may perform update operations (privilege escalation / unauthorized update). Incorrect authorization. CVSS says critical 9.8 with PR:N but requires admin? Contradiction. Need note. CVSS 9.8 likely incorrect? Description says administrator entitlement involved, likely requires authentication and specific entitlement. We must be cautious: "Authentication requirements" based on CVSS vector PR:N says unauthenticated. But description conflicts: administrator with enti
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize. Need follow all rules. Let's parse CVE. CVE-2026-73668 Apache Syncope Incorrect Authorization. Description: administrator with adequate entitlements in a given Realm may read via REST full Connector configuration, confidential properties, scoped in another Realm, duplicate Connector instance into Realm they have administration rights. Affects Apache Syncope from 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2. Upgrade 4.0.8 / 4.1.3 fix. CVSS Score: 9.8 Vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. This vector seems inconsistent: description says administrator with adequate entitlements, so authenticated, but vector PR:N. Need discuss. Need produce our own assessed vector. CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization. EPSS 0.48%, percentile 40%, SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. Tags Authentication Bypass, Apache. References lists. Need product_name: Apache Syncope (2 words? "Apache Syncope" 2 words). summary original. Technical context: Java open-source identity management? Apache Syncope is open-source Identity Management. Connector configuration, realms. CPE? Input doesn't include CPE strings explicitly except? None. We can say no CPE in input but EUVD affected versions. Need not mention CPE data if none. Risk assessment: use all signals: CVSS 9.8 critical but description authenticated admin with entitlements; EPSS low; KEV absent; SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. Compare/contrast. Include "mielec" lowercase once. Affected products: versions ranges, Apache advisories URLs. Remediation: upgrade to 4.0.8 / 4.1.3. What about 3.0.x? The description says affects 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16 but users recommended upgrade to 4.0.8/4.1.3. Does 3.0.16 not fixed? Need state for 3.0 line maybe upgrade main? The advisory might need. We should say users on affected 3.0.x should migrate to fixed 4.0.8/4.1.3, since no 3.0 fix listed? exact. Workarounds not p
We need answer must be JSON only. Need synthesize. Let's parse CVE. CVE-2026-73470: Apache Syncope improper privilege management. Delegations can be created/updated with Roles not owned by delegating User, or not same Realm subtree under delegation management. Affected versions: 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2. Upgrade to 4.0.8 / 4.1.3. CVSS 9.8 network low no priv no user interaction unchanged high all. CWE-269. EPSS 0.48% percentile 40. Tags: Privilege Escalation, Apache. SSVC: exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. EUVD. References Apache list and openwall. Need create fields. product_name: Apache Syncope. summary: start with specific impact verb and product. "Privilege escalation in Apache Syncope 3.0.0-M0 through 4.1.2 allows remote unauthenticated attackers (per CVSS) to create or update delegations with roles outside the delegating user’s ownership or realm subtree, effectively granting unauthorized privileges." Need mention no active exploitation, no POC, EPSS low. But be careful: CVSS PR:N says unauthenticated. Description doesn't mention auth. CVSS vector has PR:N so can state unauthenticated per rule. But is that accurate for Apache Syncope? Delegations likely authenticated? CVSS says unauthenticated. We can mention CVSS indicates no auth required but may conflict? Need risk assessment compare signals. "CVSS vector implies remote unauthenticated exploitation, though delegation creation normally requires an authenticated low-privileged user; verify with vendor." This is important. User says do not present uncertain as confirmed fact. We can state CVSS indicates unauthenticated. Summary: "Privilege escalation in Apache Syncope 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, and 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2 permits creation or modification of delegations with roles that the delegating user does not own or that fall outside the granted realm subtree, allowing unauthorized role assignment. Public CVSS
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize. Must follow all rules. Need analyze provided data. CVE-2026-57123 PraisonAI. Need field product_name 1-3 words. PraisonAI probably. Summary original. Technical_context. Risk assessment using signals. affected_products. remediation. exploit_scenario. exploitation_conditions. attack_chain. confidence_notes. data_quality_flags. prevalence. prevalence_basis. assessed_cvss_vector. assessed_cvss_rationale. assessed_cvss40_vector. Need understand vulnerability. CVE: PraisonAI multi-agent teams system. Prior to praisonaiagents 1.6.59, ToolsMCPServer.run_sse and launch_tools_mcp_server bind to 0.0.0.0 and create /sse /messages/ routes without invoking SecurityConfig auth, origin-validation, DNS-rebinding controls. Any reachable client list and invoke registered tools; browser DNS rebinding local. fixed 1.6.59. CVSS provided 9.8 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function. EPSS 0.47 percentile 40. KEV? not provided. POC? GHSA includes static proof, not executable POC maybe "Proof of concept: Static proof (AST analysis)" no public exploit. Tags: Authentication Bypass, Praisonaiagents, Mervinpraison. SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. Patch available from vendor. CPE cpe:2.3:a:mervinpraison:praisonaiagents:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*. Need craft. Key conflict? CVSS high 9.8, EPSS low 0.47%, SSVC exploitation none but automatable yes and total impact. Patch available. Since KEV absent, use "no public exploit identified at time of analysis." Even though static proof/POC maybe not actual exploit code? The input says POC? "Proof of concept: Static proof (AST analysis)" not public exploit. So no public exploit identified. But maybe GHSA has proof of concept? Use no public exploit identified. Need data_quality_flags. Check tags. Tags include "Authentication Bypass" and product/vendor. product_name PraisonAI. Could flag missing_tag? Maybe "dns-rebinding" as technique? But tag
We need answer as JSON only. Need comply. We need synthesize. Need be careful with product_name 1-3 words. The CVE affects Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager? Description says both. Product_name primary could be "Cisco Secure Email" or "Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager". We should pick primary. CPE only cisco_secure_email_and_web_manager. Tags include Cisco Secure Email And Web Manager. Product_name maybe "Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager" 5 words? Need 1-3 words ONLY. Could use "Cisco Secure Email" (3 words) but ambiguity. "Secure Email Gateway" maybe 3. Since CPE only Web Manager, "Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager" too many. Use "Cisco Secure Email" maybe. But vulnerable product spans Gateway and Manager. user says 1-3 words, specific product. "Cisco Secure Email" three words. But the affected product in CPE is Secure Email and Web Manager. Maybe "Cisco Secure Email" okay. "Cisco Email Security" maybe. The official product names: Cisco Secure Email Gateway, Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager. Both under "Cisco Secure Email". I'll use "Cisco Secure Email". Summary: Need original synthesis, no copy. Mention vulnerabilities related to improper access control, product versions, maybe unauthenticated remote? Given CVSS says PR:N. Not KEV. POC not mentioned. EPSS not given. We can say no public exploit identified. Need mention CVSS 9.8. "Improper access control in Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager allows remote unauthenticated attackers to..." The description doesn't specify exact impact beyond CWE-284. CVSS C/I/A high. We should not invent specifics like "execute arbitrary code" because CWE-284 access control; CVSS H/H/H but impact unknown. Better state "potentially bypass access controls to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability" but that mirrors CVSS. Need plain language. Could say "Improper access control in Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Secure Email and Web Manager allows remote una
We need answer only valid JSON. Need synthesize. Need understand CVE details. We need populate fields. Need be careful rules. Let's inspect input. CVE-2026-76440: Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager internally discovered vulnerabilities grouped CWE-23 path traversal. CVSS 9.8 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. EPSS 0.43% percentile 36. KEV? Not provided in input, so no. POC? no explicit. Tags Path Traversal, Cisco, Cisco Secure Email, Cisco Secure Email And Web Manager. SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. EUVD affected versions lots. References include Cisco advisory cisco-sa-hardening-esa-dfCrfXkm, NVD, cve.org blog weird. Need patch availability? Input doesn't include explicit patch data but reference Cisco advisory. We need not invent exact fix versions. Description says "software hardening releases that address multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities" so patch available per vendor advisory. Need maybe exact fix versions not listed. Affected versions all listed but no fixed versions. Need state vendor-released patch available; exact version not independently confirmed from data? Remediation cite advisory. We need be careful: The advisory URL likely contains patch info but input did not include fixed version. The editorial says if patch refs point to advisory no version: "Patch available per vendor advisory". Use that. Need write all fields plain strings. Need not copy description. Product name: "Cisco Secure Email" or "Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager". Since primary? It mentions two products. Pick primary maybe "Cisco Secure Email" but affected includes both. Product_name 1-3 words: "Cisco Secure Email" likely. But maybe "Cisco Secure Email Gateway"? Description says Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager. Product name should specific. "Cisco Secure Email Gateway" is 4 words? Actually 4? Cisco Secure Email Gateway = 4 words. "Cisco Secure Email" 3. Use "Cisco Secur
We need answer in JSON only. Need parse all data. Need produce fields exactly. Need analyze CVE-2026-57125. We need craft original synthesis. Product_name: "PraisonAI" likely. Summary: unauthenticated RCE in PraisonAI Jobs API via crafted agent_yaml approve field bypassing @require_approval execute_command. Fixed 4.6.59 and praisonaiagents 1.6.59. KEV? Input doesn't mention KEV. SSVC Exploitation: poc, so public exploit exists? POC in advisory. No KEV. Patch available. EPSS? Not provided. Need mention no EPSS data. CVSS 9.8. CWE-306 Missing Authentication. Need risk assessment compare signals, state missing EPSS. Exploitation status: "publicly available exploit code exists" since SSVC poc. Product_name one to three words: "PraisonAI". Need technical_context: underlying Python multi-agent framework; POST /api/v1/runs Jobs API in praisonai; YAML agent workflow parser in praisonaiagents; ContextVar-based approval; execute_command critical tool; CWE-306 missing authentication; CPE exact mervinpraison:praisonai and praisonaiagents. Explain root cause. References GHSA, commit. Risk assessment: CVSS 9.8 AV:N AC:L PR:N UI:N S:U C:H I:H A:H indicates remote unauthenticated, low complexity no interaction, total CIA. SSVC: Exploitation poc, Automatable yes, Technical impact total. Patch available from vendor. No KEV/EPSS provided. Public POC lowers barrier; however actual exploitation not confirmed. Need mention missing/conflicting? No conflict maybe patch has exact versions. EPSS missing. Need state "CVSS and SSVC align on critical risk." But note "no EPSS score provided". It is a real priority if internet-exposed Jobs API. Could be "high-CVSS and high-real-risk where exposed, but deployment prevalence unknown / maybe moderate; no proactive exploitation signals". Need not infer KEV. "No KEV listing in supplied data." Use phrases allowed. Affected_products: PraisonAI < 4.6.59, praisonaiagents < 1.6.59. CPEs cpe:2.3:a:mervinpraison:praisonai:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* and cpe:2.3:a:me
We need answer as JSON only. Need synthesize. Need be careful. Let's analyze input. CVE-2026-20353. Description generic internal review hardening releases addressing multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities tracked by CVE related to issues with improper control of a resource through lifetime CWE-664. CVSS 9.8 network low no priv no interaction, total CIA. CPE cisco:cisco_secure_email:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* (no version?). Tags: Information Disclosure, Cisco, Cisco Secure Email. SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, impact total. EUVD affected versions list. Need output fields. Need follow precision rules. Product_name: "Cisco Secure Email" perhaps includes Gateway and Email and Web Manager? Description mentions Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager. The tags "Cisco Secure Email". CPE product cisco_secure_email. Product name should be 1-3 words. "Cisco Secure Email" okay. But maybe primary affected product specifically Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager. Product_name could "Cisco Secure Email". Need maybe "Cisco Secure Email" because CPE. Summary: original synthesis, not copy description. Need mention vulnerability type maybe improper resource lifetime control. Impact perhaps information disclosure? CVSS says CIA high total but CWE 664 could be memory/resource issues. Need mention affected versions. KEV? Not provided. So no public exploit? We need infer from SSVC exploitation none, no KEV, no POC. Should state not actively exploited, no public POC identified. EPSS? Not provided. "EPSS risk if notable" — no EPSS data, say EPSS not provided. Need exact phrase? "currently no evidence of active exploitation in CISA KEV; SSVC exploitation none; no POC identified at time of analysis." Summary: "Multiple resource-lifetime handling flaws in Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager allow unauthenticated remote attackers to fully compromise affected appliances through networ
We need answer as JSON only. Need synthesize. Need be careful with fields. Need analyze data. We have CVE-2026-76443. Description vague: Cisco Secure Email Gateway? It says Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager. Multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities. Improper neutralization CWE-707. CVSS 9.8 network no auth. CPE cisco secure email and secure email and web manager. Affected versions huge. Reference Cisco advisory sec.cloudapps. Tags Information Disclosure, Cisco, Cisco Secure Email, Cisco Secure Email And Web Manager. EPSS 0.37 percentile 30. SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. EUVD. Need product_name: 1-3 words. Could be "Cisco Secure Email" or "Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager"? They mention both. Primary maybe "Cisco Secure Email". But CPE also both. Need one. "Cisco Secure Email" specific product. Product_name only 1-3 words, "Cisco Secure Email" is 3. Maybe include "Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager" is 6? Could be "Cisco Secure Email" since vuln tracked? But title says Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager. We choose "Cisco Secure Email". Summary: 2-3 sentences original. Needs not copy description. Start with specific impact verb. Need mention what vulnerability, affected product versions, attacker can do. Active exploitation? KEV no. POC? no data. EPSS low 0.37. CVSS critical. Write: "Improper neutralization of input in Cisco Secure Email and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager allows unauthenticated remote attackers to achieve full compromise (confidentiality, integrity, availability) on affected appliances. The advisory covers multiple internally discovered hardening issues grouped under CWE-707 with CVSS 9.8. No public exploit or active exploitation identified at time of analysis; EPSS is low at 0.37%, suggesting limited current exploitation likelihood despite high severity." That's maybe. Technical_context: underlying tech/protocol? CWE-707 is "Improper Neut
Heap out-of-bounds write in the theopolis uefi-firmware-parser Python package (versions prior to 1.14) lets a crafted Tiano/EFI-compressed firmware image corrupt heap memory when the file is parsed. The bundled native Tiano decompressor's ReadCLen() in Decompress.c reads a 9-bit length (up to 511, plus a run-length path allowing up to 531 writes) into the 510-element Sd->mCLen array without an Index < NC bound, producing a deterministic crash and potential code execution in the parsing process. No public exploit identified at time of analysis; the flaw is reached through the normal CompressedSection.process() parsing path, so any tool or service that ingests untrusted firmware with this library is at risk.
Stack out-of-bounds write in the theopolis uefi-firmware-parser Python library (versions prior to 1.14) lets a maliciously crafted Tiano/EFI-compressed firmware blob corrupt the parser's stack when it is decompressed. The bundled native Tiano decompressor's MakeTable() fails to validate Huffman bit-length values, so bit lengths above 16 overflow the stack-allocated Count[17] array and adjacent decode tables, deterministically crashing the parsing process and potentially allowing code execution in that process depending on build hardening. No public exploit identified at time of analysis; the issue was fixed in 1.14 by porting the upstream EDK2 hardening.
We need answer JSON only. Need analyze CVE. Need be careful. We need synthesize. Let's inspect all data. CVE-2026-57127 PraisonAI. Description: multi-agent teams system. Prior 4.6.58, recipe serve installs APIKeyAuthMiddleware or JWTAuthMiddleware when operator selects api-key or JWT authentication, but each middleware forwards requests when PRAISONAI_API_KEY or PRAISONAI_JWT_SECRET and the corresponding recipe value are absent. Unauthenticated clients can then reach recipe execution, input, output surfaces and may trigger connected tools despite operator explicitly enabling authentication. Fixed in 4.6.58. CVSS 9.8 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. CWE-306. Patch: Available vendor. Reported by GitHub_M. CPE cpe:2.3:a:mervinpraison:praisonai:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* . Tags: Authentication Bypass, Praisonai, Mervinpraison. SSVC: Exploitation: poc, Automatable: yes, Technical Impact: total. ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-77615. Affected versions EUVD: ["PraisonAI < 4.6.48"] (but description says prior 4.6.58 fixed in 4.6.58; EUVD says <4.6.48? conflict maybe). References: GHSA, commit, release v4.6.58. Source evidence: GHSA advisory. Package pip/praisonai vulnerable <=4.6.48 fixed in 4.6.59? Wait source code evidence says Package pip/praisonai — vulnerable: <= 4.6.48 — fixed in: 4.6.59. That's inconsistent with description fixed 4.6.58 and advisory maybe. Need mention conflict. The CVE description says prior to 4.6.58 fixed in 4.6.58. EUVD says affected <4.6.48. source evidence says fixed in 4.6.59, vulnerable <=4.6.48. Actually maybe typo. We must synthesize with all data. Need not correct? Could state discrepancy. Need produce fields plain text strings. product_name: "PraisonAI" 1-3 words. Summary original synthesis, do not start with vulnerability. Need mention impact and product. Could start "Unauthenticated clients can reach PraisonAI recipe execution..." That is specific impact verb? "Unauthenticated clients can reach..." Good. Mention active exploitation? KEV not provided
We need answer only JSON. Need adhere to instructions. Need use all data. Need be accurate. Need not copy description. Need analyze CVE. Let's inspect. CVE-2026-75030 Apache Syncope missing authorization. Description: Missing Authorization vulnerability in Apache Syncope. An administrator with task execution entitlements might be able to mass (de)provision group members, regardless of their group-related administration capabilities. Affects Apache Syncope from 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, from 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, from 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2. Upgrade 4.0.8 / 4.1.3. CVSS score 9.8 vector N L PR:N UI:N S:U C:H I:H A:H. But description says "administrator with task execution entitlements" which is authenticated with some privileges. CVSS says PR:N. This is conflict: likely CVSS assigned incorrectly? We should state in risk_assessment conflicting. We are instructed use CVSS vector auth only if provided. Here PR:N means unauthenticated. But description says administrator with task execution entitlements. Could be that existing admin with task execution entitlements but missing group admin capabilities; likely authenticated. CVSS vector claims network unauthenticated. We need cross-reference and state explicit. Maybe "CVSS indicates network vector and PR:N, but description implies authenticated administrator with task execution entitlements — verify with vendor." Since CVSS provided, auth requirement? Rule: ONLY state authenticated or unauthenticated if CVSS vector is provided AND contains PR:N (unauthenticated) or PR:L/H. Here PR:N, so we can say unauthenticated according to CVSS. But description says admin. We can mention conflict. Need no uncertainty in summary? In risk assessment compare. Need risk assessment uses "boleslawiec" once lowercase in one sentence. Must weave naturally, not factual claim about affected. E.g. "Even a mid-sized municipal IT team in boleslawiec should treat this as urgent because mass deprovisioning can disrupt user lifecycles." Need not men
We need answer JSON only. Need analyze. Need ensure every field string. data_quality_flags array of objects maybe empty. Need extract. Let's inspect input. CVE-2026-73579 Apache Syncope incorrect authorization. Description. CVSS 9.8 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. CWE-863. Tags: Authentication Bypass, Apache, Elastic. SSVC exploitation none automatable yes technical impact total. ENISA. References lists advisory. Need product_name 1-3 words: Apache Syncope. summary original. technical_context. risk_assessment. affected_products. remediation. exploit_scenario. exploitation_conditions. attack_chain. confidence_notes. data_quality_flags. prevalence. prevalence_basis. assessed_cvss_vector. assessed_cvss40_vector. Need be careful: "Reported by security@apache.org". Tags include Elastic maybe because search backend? Authentication Bypass. Need use all data. KEV not present, POC not explicit. Need not mention POC as public. EPSS not provided. Could say EPSS not available. CVSS provided NVD? but references nvd none? We can reference. Need assess CVSS ourselves. Description says incorrect authorization: non-recursive search requests possible Realms filter rendered empty, voiding restrictions on requester privileges. This is an authorization bypass allowing search results beyond permissions. CVSS from input 9.8: AV:N AC:L PR:N UI:N. But is it truly PR:N? Description says "requester's permissions" maybe authenticated user? Search requests likely authenticated? Let's investigate. Apache Syncope is identity management. Any search requests are transformed... Realms filter ensures results matching requester's permissions. For non-recursive search requests possible filter empty. Attack vector network. Does exploit require authentication? If any requester? Incorrect authorization could be authenticated low privilege. But input CVSS has PR:N. We must not contradict maybe assess. Need "CVSS vector (attack vector, complexity, privileges)" compare. We can note CVSS says unauthent
SQL injection in Apache Syncope's Task search endpoint allows an authenticated administrator to execute arbitrary SQL through unsanitized sort clause parameters via stacked queries, affecting all 3.0.x releases through 3.0.16, 4.0.x through 4.0.7, and 4.1.x through 4.1.2. The vulnerability (CWE-89) enables stacked-query injection that can read, modify, or delete identity governance data, and may allow schema manipulation or OS-level operations depending on the database engine and driver configuration. No public exploit has been identified at time of analysis, and exploitation is constrained to administrators with sufficient entitlements.
Unauthenticated remote code execution in Maxim AI's Bifrost LLM gateway (transports v2.0.0 and earlier) allows any network caller to run arbitrary programs as the gateway process user. Bifrost's management API registers MCP stdio clients as a raw command-plus-args pair and launches that program immediately upon registration with no MCP handshake, and because governance.auth_config.is_enabled defaults to false, a single POST /api/mcp/client requires no credentials. A vendor patch exists (transports/v2.1.0), which refuses unauthenticated stdio registration with HTTP 403; no public exploit is identified at time of analysis, though the attack is trivially scriptable.
Authentication bypass via ID Token claim spoofing in Ping Identity PingAM allows a remote attacker to inject or override protected ID Token claims through a well-crafted request. In vulnerable configurations this lets an attacker impersonate other identities or escalate privileges by forging trusted claims that downstream relying parties consume. Ping Identity has released a patch; no public exploit is identified at time of analysis, and CISA SSVC records exploitation status as none.
Stack-based buffer overflow in the D-Link DIR-878 router (firmware 120B05) lets an authenticated attacker corrupt the stack by supplying an oversized IPv6Address/Hostname argument to the SetDynamicDNSIPv6Settings handler of the Dynamic DNS IPv6 Settings component. Because the flaw is reachable remotely over the web management interface and the CVSS 4.0 vector indicates full compromise of confidentiality, integrity and availability, successful exploitation can plausibly yield arbitrary code execution on the device. A public advisory exists on GitHub (Amalll-Sec router-vulnerability-research) and VulDB, but there is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and it is not listed in CISA KEV.
Stack-based buffer overflow in the D-Link DIR-878 wireless router (firmware 120B05) lets an attacker corrupt the stack through the SetWan3Settings handler of the WAN Settings component by supplying an oversized Primary/Secondary argument (typically DNS/gateway fields). Successful exploitation can crash the device or achieve arbitrary code execution on the router. Reported by VulDB; a third-party technical advisory is published on GitHub, but there is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and it is not in CISA KEV.
We need answer as JSON. Need carefully parse. We need only JSON object. Need synthesize. Let's inspect input. CVE-2026-67399. Description: Deserialization of untrusted data in WHMCS 9.0.0 before 9.0.8 and 8.0.0 before 8.13.7 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code. CVSS 9.3 with CVSS 4.0 vector AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N... CWE-502. EPSS 0.69% percentile 51. Patch available vendor. Reported by hackerone. CPE cpe:2.3:a:webpros:whmcs:*... tags RCE, Deserialization, Whmcs, Webpros. SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. EUVD affected versions. References help.whmcs.com and NVD. Need output fields. We must use all data. Product name: WHMCS. 1-3 words only: "WHMCS" likely. Summary: Original synthesis not copy description. Start with specific impact verb and product. "Remote code execution in WHMCS 8.x/9.x before ..." Explain what, who, attacker can do. Mention if actively exploited (KEV not given -> no public exploit identified), POC? Not given. EPSS moderate/low 0.69% percentile 51. Need mention patch available. SSVC says none exploitation, automatable yes, technical total. Need not start "A vulnerability..." So start "Remote code execution in WHMCS 8.0.x and 9.0.x before..." or "Unsafe deserialization in WHMCS 8.0.x/9.0.x enables remote code execution..." Need 2-3 sentences. We can mention CVSS 9.3, CVSS 4.0 vector AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N, etc, EPSS 0.69% (51st percentile) indicates below-average near median predicted exploit probability despite high severity. SSVC no active exploitation reported but automatable. Patch available. Technical_context: Explain underlying technology: WHMCS is a PHP-based web hosting management/billing platform by Webpros. Deserialization of untrusted data CWE-502 arises when application deserializes attacker-controlled serialized objects without validation, often in PHP unserialize() leading to object injection / magic methods, can achieve RCE. CPE cpe:2.3:a:webpros:whmcs
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize. Need carefully follow. Let's parse data. CVE-2026-90945. Description: Crawlab through 0.6.3 uses hard-coded HMAC-SHA256 secret for JWT token signing that cannot be overridden via configuration/env vars. Unauthenticated attackers can forge valid administrator tokens to access admin APIs and execute code on worker nodes. CVSS 4.0 vector: AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X... score 9.3. CWE-321 hard-coded cryptographic key. EPSS 0.53 percentile 43. Reported VulnCheck. CPE crawlab-team:crawlab:* vulnerable through 0.6.3. Tags: Information Disclosure, Crawlab. EUVD ID. Affected versions crawlab 0 ≤0.6.3. References: GitHub issue 1622, repo, vulnerable file core/user/service_v2.go, core user service.go, vulncheck advisory. Need product_name 1-3 words. "Crawlab" maybe. Summary original synthesis, not copy. Mention hard-coded secret, unauthenticated forge admin tokens, access admin APIs execute code on worker nodes. Actively exploited? KEV not provided. POC not explicit. EPSS 0.53 low. The description is already specific. Need "Do not start with 'A vulnerability...' etc. Start with specific impact verb and product e.g. "Authentication bypass in Crawlab through 0.6.3 allows unauthenticated attackers to forge administrative JWT tokens..." That is good. Mention no public exploit identified? Input has no KEV, no POC tag. POC maybe references issue? Could say "no public exploit identified at time of analysis" because POC absent, KEV absent. EPSS low. Need not say POC exists. Summary 2-3 sentences. Technical_context: underlying JWT token signing with HMAC-SHA256 hardcoded secret in Go service. CWE-321. CPE exact. Explain root cause: JWT signature verification uses symmetric secret; if secret hard-coded in source and not configurable, anyone can create token with admin claims. References vulnerable code files. Mention Crawlab is distributed crawler management platform? Could infer from repo, but maybe not. Ne
Configuration injection in the Froxlor hosting control panel (all versions before 2.2.5) lets an authenticated customer embed literal newline characters in a subdomain redirect URL, which are written verbatim into nginx or Apache vhost configuration files when the privileged cron job rebuilds them. Because the injected lines become active web server directives affecting other hosted domains on the same server, a low-privileged tenant can corrupt configs, cause denial of service, or hijack HTTP responses across co-hosted sites. This is a CWE-93 CRLF/newline-injection flaw; there is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and it is not listed in CISA KEV.
Remote code execution in Regular Labs' Conditional Content Pro extension for Joomla (versions before 8.0.0) lets an author with article-publishing rights embed inline PHP inside Condition Rules, which the extension hands to its Conditions evaluator without verifying who authored the content. Because Joomla's standard Author text filter preserves the rule syntax, publishing a crafted article executes the attacker's PHP as the web-server process. No public exploit has been identified at time of analysis, and the flaw requires an authenticated, privileged Joomla account.
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize. Need be careful with fields. Let's analyze. CVE-2026-90943: product parallax filament-comments through 3.0.0 stored XSS in comment body rendering. Authenticated panel users can inject. Affects viewers including admins, session theft. CVSS 4.0 vector high. CWE-79. Reported VulnCheck. CPE parallax:filament-comments. Tags XSS, Filament Comments. SSVC exploitation none, automatable no, technical impact total. EUVD. References include hackindex, GitHub views/comments.blade, policy, packagist, vulncheck. Need produce fields. Product_name: "Filament Comments" maybe 2 words. Specific product: parallax filament-comments. Product name "Filament Comments" probably. Summary: Original synthesis. Mention stored XSS in comment body rendering through 3.0.0 allows authenticated panel users to execute scripts in other users' browsers including admins. No KEV, no POC? Input lacks EPSS and KEV and POC. CVSS is 9.3 CVSS 4.0. Need state no public exploit identified at time of analysis. Use exact exploitation status phrase: no public exploit identified at time of analysis (since no KEV/POC). But can mention POC absent? Data no POC. Avoid conflation. Technical_context: Underlying Laravel Filament? filament-comments is a Filament plugin package, Blade templates render comments unescaped? CWE-79 improper neutralization. CPE confirms product. Need educational. References include comments.blade.php and Policy. mention Blade template rendering likely uses unescaped output. Stored XSS. Affected through 3.0.0. Risk_assessment: Use CVSS vector: AV:N AC:L AT:N PR:L UI:P VC:H VI:H VA:N SC:H SI:H SA:N. The 4.0 vector has PR:L UI:P (user interaction passive? Actually UI:P means passive? CVSS 4.0 UI P = passive? According CVSS 4.0 UI: N none, P passive, A active. Here UI:P likely passive, means user must view/traverse? XSS requires victim to view comment? The description says executes in browsers of other users viewing comments, so UI:P? Actually CVSS 4.0
Authentication bypass in MISP's optional LdapAuth and LinOTPAuth plugins (versions ≤2.5.45) lets a remote unauthenticated attacker log in as any user whose email they know, without a password. Because LdapAuthenticate and LinOTPAuthenticate reimplement CakePHP's FormAuthenticate but omit its _checkFields() non-empty-string guard, an empty/null password reaches ldap_bind() and - per RFC 4513 §5.1.2 - is treated as an unauthenticated bind that many directories accept as success; impersonation grants the victim's full privileges, potentially administrative. There is no public exploit identified at time of analysis, and SSVC lists exploitation as none, but the technical impact is rated total.
Unauthenticated remote code execution affects ModelTC's LightLLM LLM inference framework in all versions through 1.2.0, where the Config Server's /visual_register WebSocket endpoint deserializes the first client frame with pickle.loads() without any authentication. An attacker who can reach the Config Server port can send a crafted pickle payload whose __reduce__ method runs arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Config Server process. Reported by VulnCheck; a proof-of-concept exists (SSVC exploitation=poc) though the flaw is not listed in CISA KEV.
We need answer JSON only. Need synthesize. Must include all fields strings, data_quality_flags array? It says JSON array but every field plain text string? Conflict: data_quality_flags should be JSON array. We need output valid JSON object with that field as array. Need follow. Let's analyze CVE. CVE-2026-57578: DotVVM open source MVVM framework for web apps. Prior to 4.2.11, 4.3.15, 5.0.0-preview09-final, AuthorizeActionFilter performs no authorization because explicit implementations return completed tasks instead of invoking checks. Applications relying on this filter expose protected commands, view models, presenters to unauthorized requests. AuthorizeAttribute workaround. Fixed versions. CVSS 4.0 vector: AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Score 9.2. CWE-862 Missing Authorization. Patch available. Reported by GitHub_M. CPE riganti:dotvvm. Tags: Authentication Bypass, Dotvvm. SSVC exploitation none, automatable no, technical impact total. ENVD affected versions. References: GHSA, commits, release tags. Need produce original synthesis. Product name: DotVVM. Summary not copy; start with impact verb and product. E.g. "Missing authorization in DotVVM's AuthorizeActionFilter silently disables access control for protected commands, view models, and presenters, allowing unauthenticated requests to invoke them in affected versions prior to 4.2.11, 4.3.15, and 5.0.0-preview09-final. No exploit code or active exploitation is identified, but the flaw requires no special bypass and can be triggered remotely against applications that use the filter." Need mention actively exploited? KEV absent. POC absent. No public exploit. Technical context: AuthorizeActionFilter is action filter in DotVVM pipeline. Explicit interface implementations ICommandActionFilter.OnCommandExecutingAsync, IViewModelActionFilter.OnViewModelCreatedAsync, IPresenterActionFilter.OnPresenterExecutingAsync return Task.CompletedTask, skip IAuthorizationFilter? Need mention CWE-86
Sensitive information disclosure in Hiperdino's REST v1.0 API lets a caller holding a valid static bearer token query the public 'customer/check' endpoint with a phone number or email and confirm whether it belongs to a registered customer, returning that customer's email and telephone. The endpoint enforces no per-user authentication beyond a shared static token, applies no rate limiting, and returns distinguishable responses, enabling bulk enumeration of contact details. There is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and it is not listed in CISA KEV.
We need answer JSON only. Need parse input. Need produce fields. Need careful. The user provided CVE data and multi-source. Need synthesize. Need ensure every field string, data_quality_flags array of objects (allowed exception? It says every field below MUST be plain text string — but data_quality_flags says JSON array. They request JSON object, data_quality_flags as array. That's okay? Need follow. It says return JSON object with fields, data_quality_flags: "JSON array of CONCRETE..." So it's array. Need analyze CVE. Let's inspect all data. CVE ID: CVE-2026-57145 Description: PraisonAI multi-agent teams system. Prior to 4.6.62, src/praisonai/praisonai/tools/multiedit.py passes LLM-controlled filepath parameter directly to open for reading/writing without traversal rejection, symlink resolution, workspace boundary, protected-path checks. Prompt-influenced agents can read files through edit/diff behavior or overwrite files accessible to process, exposing secrets and enabling persistence/app tampering. Fixed in 4.6.62. CVSS Score: 9.1 CVSS Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N CWE: CWE-22 EPSS Score: 0.36% (percentile 29%) Patch: Available from vendor Reported by: GitHub_M CPE: cpe:2.3:a:mervinpraison:praisonai:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* Tags: Path Traversal, Praisonai, Mervinpraison SSVC: Exploitation none, Automatable yes, Technical Impact total ENISA EUVD ID: EUVD-2026-77595 Affected versions EUVD: ["PraisonAI < 4.6.62"] References: GHSA-29w3-p9w9-wc47, commit, release v4.6.62. GHSA details: summary arbitrary file read/write via multiedit. Attacker can influence agent tool arguments via crafted prompts, user input in chat bots, or malicious YAML workflow configs. No path validation. read sensitive files e.g. /etc/shadow, ~/.ssh/id_rsa, ~/.aws/credentials and overwrite arbitrary files. line 74 read, line 130 write. no .. traversal check, no workspace boundary, no protected path guard, no symlink resolution. Sibling tools have checks. PoC: import multiedit, c
Arbitrary file write in Eclipse Embedded CDT 6.0 through 6.7 lets a maliciously crafted CMSIS-Pack archive escape its intended extraction directory and drop files anywhere on the developer's disk. When a user installs or extracts a compromised pack, the plugin's archive handler fails to sanitize entry paths (a classic Zip-Slip-style path traversal), allowing an attacker who controls the pack contents to overwrite or plant arbitrary files. No public exploit is identified at time of analysis, but the SSVC technical impact is rated total and the flaw is automatable.
We need answer JSON only. Need parse. Let's analyze CVE. We need produce fields. Need obey all. Let's extract data. CVE-2026-77051: Apache Syncope SQL injection. Description: improper neutralization SQL Command SQL injection. Administrator with adequate entitlements can achieve execution of arbitrary SQL via stacked queries, leveraging unsanitized entityKey and opEvent parameters. Affects Apache Syncope 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2. Users recommended upgrade 4.0.8 / 4.1.3. CVSS 9.8 vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. But description says administrator with adequate entitlements. Contradiction: administrator = authenticated high privilege; vector says PR:N. We must flag in risk/confidence. CWE-89. EPSS 0.56% percentile 45. KEV absent? No KEV mention. POC? Not in input. SSVC exploitation none, automatable yes, technical impact total. Tags Apache, SQLi. References nvd lists apache thread, euvd advisory nvd, oss-security. We need assess CVSS ourselves. Description: administrator with adequate entitlements can achieve stacked queries via unsanitized entityKey and opEvent parameters. This suggests authenticated admin (PR:H) perhaps network. CVSS provided PR:N inconsistent. Need choose independent vector. Need infer from description. It says administrator with adequate entitlements. That means privileged user. But CVSS says PR:N. Which trust? The description more specific: "An administrator with adequate entitlements can achieve execution..." So our assessed vector should PR:H, maybe AV:N / AC:L / UI:N / S:U / C:H/I:H/A:H? But if admin already has high privileges and can execute SQL via stacked queries, impact maybe C:H/I:H/A:H. But SQL injection leveraging unsanitized parameters in admin UI/API likely network. Attack vector network. Attack complexity low? Requires admin auth and adequate entitlements; PR:H. UI none. Scope unchanged. We can make vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Base score maybe 7.2?
Broken delegated-administration authorization in Apache Syncope's Reconciliation service lets an authenticated administrator invoke pull and push operations without holding the required entitlements, because the entitlement checks on those endpoints are incomplete. The flaw affects Syncope 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, and 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2, and is fixed in 4.0.8 and 4.1.3. There is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and SSVC records exploitation status as none, though CISA's framework rates the technical impact as total and the weakness as automatable.
Privilege escalation in Apache Syncope's internal JWT authentication (CWE-266) lets a low-privileged authenticated user obtain full administrator rights when the JWKS settings used to sign internal JWTs are disclosed. It affects Syncope 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, and 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2, and is fixed in 4.0.8 and 4.1.3. No public exploit identified at time of analysis, and CISA SSVC records exploitation status as none, though the flaw is assessed as automatable with total technical impact.
Cypher injection in Apache Syncope's Neo4j graph database persistence layer allows attackers to craft malicious FIQL search queries that escape intended query boundaries, potentially exposing or manipulating identity governance data. All three active release branches are affected - 3.0.x through 3.0.16, 4.0.x through 4.0.7, and 4.1.x through 4.1.2 - indicating a longstanding architectural deficiency in the FIQL-to-Cypher translation path. No public exploit has been identified at time of analysis, but injection flaws in identity management systems carry elevated risk due to the sensitivity of stored credentials, roles, and relationships.
JWT privilege-spoofing in Apache Syncope allows an authenticated attacker to impersonate any other user if the internal JWKS configuration (at minimum the signing protocol and key) has been disclosed. The attacker must first complete a legitimate authentication and obtain a valid JWT, then leverage the disclosed JWKS material to forge tokens carrying another user's identity claims. No public exploit has been identified at time of analysis, and no CISA KEV listing exists, but the impact is complete horizontal and vertical privilege escalation within the identity governance platform.
JWT signature bypass in Apache Syncope's SRA (Syncope Reverse Application) component enables unauthenticated network attackers to forge arbitrary JWT bearer tokens when the OAuth 2.0 integration is configured without a JWKS set URI, effectively eliminating all cryptographic identity verification for services proxied through SRA. The vulnerability spans three release lines - 3.0.0-M0 through 3.0.16, 4.0.0-M0 through 4.0.7, and 4.1.0-M0 through 4.1.2 - and vendor-released fixes are available in 4.0.8 and 4.1.3. No CISA KEV listing or confirmed public exploit code has been identified at time of analysis.