Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessUnknown vector
-
ExploitUnknown exploit mechanism
-
ImpactUnknown impact
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V5 - File Handling Path canonicalization, traversal prevention
MITRE ATT&CK
2 techniques across 2 tactics: Discovery, Collection The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up. |
| Exploitation Conditions | Exploitation conditions cannot be determined: the CVE description is '[Unknown description]' and no CVSS vector is provided, so no product feature, protocol, configuration setting, deployment mode, authentication level, or user-interaction requirement can be identified. The only datum is that the record is sourced from Ubuntu. Required prerequisites and limiting factors must be extracted from the Ubuntu Security Notice and the full CVE description once available. |
| Impact | Risk cannot be meaningfully assessed from the provided data because nearly every decision signal is absent. There is no CVSS vector or base score (so attack vector, complexity, and privilege requirements are all unknown), no EPSS exploitation-probability score, no CISA KEV listing, and no indication of public POC availability; the CWE and the vulnerability description itself are also missing. The only intelligence present is a single source attribution, 'vendor:ubuntu', indicating the issue was reported or tracked via Ubuntu (likely a Ubuntu Security Notice for a packaged component), but neither the affected package nor the impact is specified. Because no exploitation signals (EPSS/KEV/POC) and no severity signals (CVSS) are available, this cannot be confirmed as either a genuine priority or a high-CVSS-but-low-real-risk issue - the prioritization decision must be deferred until the Ubuntu advisory and NVD record are retrieved. No conflicting signals exist to reconcile; the problem is pervasive data absence, not contradiction. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | No realistic exploit scenario can be constructed because the vulnerability description, affected component, vulnerability class (CWE), and CVSS attack vector/complexity are all missing from the input. No public exploit has been identified at the time of analysis. The affected product and exploitation mechanics must be obtained from the Ubuntu Security Notice before any scenario can be described. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Oct 06, 2026
CVE-2026-61702 is recorded in this dataset solely as a vendor-sourced report from Ubuntu, with no description, no CVSS score or vector, no CWE mapping, and no CPE data, so the specific Ubuntu package, upstream component, and version range involved cannot be identified. Because the description is '[Unknown description]', no attacker capability, impact, or exploitation precondition can be stated, and the EPSS, KEV, and proof-of-concept signals are all absent - there is no evidence of active exploitation and no public exploit code identified at time of analysis, though that absence reflects missing data rather than a positive finding of safety. Risk cannot be meaningfully assessed from the provided data because nearly every decision signal is absent; prioritization should be deferred until the Ubuntu Security Notice and canonical CVE description are retrieved.
RemediationAI
Patch status is not established from the available data: no fix version, upstream commit, or vendor advisory was supplied, and the input does not state that a patch is or is not available, so no upgrade target can be cited. The immediate actionable step is identification rather than mitigation - retrieve the Ubuntu CVE tracker page and Ubuntu Security Notice for CVE-2026-61702 to determine the affected package, impacted Ubuntu releases, and the fixed package version, then apply the version specified there via apt using your normal change-control process. Because the affected component is unknown, no specific compensating control can be responsibly recommended here: disabling a service, blocking a port, or restricting an endpoint would require knowing which interface is exposed, and a wrong guess could remove functionality without reducing risk. If exposure must be limited before identification completes, the only defensible interim measures are broadly scoped and carry real trade-offs - for example isolating the host from untrusted networks or tightening network-level access to the host, at the cost of availability and operational overhead. Subscribe to Ubuntu security announcements so the USN is received as soon as it is published, and re-run this assessment once the description, CVSS vector, and CPE data are available.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)
Affects your stack
Affects 1 package in euvd
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
No technical context can be derived from the supplied record. The CPE field is empty, so the affected product and version range cannot be enumerated; the CWE field is empty, so the root-cause class (for example injection, deserialization, memory-safety, or access-control weakness) cannot be characterized; and the CVSS vector is absent, so it is impossible to determine whether exploitation is network-accessible, whether authentication is required, or whether user interaction is needed. The single traceable datum is the reporting source: vendor:ubuntu. In practice this means the record is being tracked through Ubuntu's security process, which typically indicates a flaw affecting one or more packages shipped in the Ubuntu archive - frequently an upstream open-source project packaged for Ubuntu, with the Ubuntu Security Notice (USN) serving as the authoritative Ubuntu-specific advisory and possibly cross-referencing an upstream CVE or Debian security tracker entry. Until the USN or the canonical CVE record is retrieved, no library, protocol, service, or configuration surface can be named, and any statement about the underlying technology would be speculation.
Know when Cups gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Primary rating from Vendor (vendor:ubuntu) · only source for this CVE.
CVSS VectorVendor: vendor:ubuntu
Lifecycle Timeline
1DescriptionCVE.org
[Unknown description]
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Path traversal exploits occur when applications use user-controlled input to construct file system paths without proper validation.
The add_job function in scheduler/ipp.c in cupsd in CUPS before 2.0.3 performs incorrect free operations for multiple-va
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the cgi_puts function in cgi-bin/template.c in the template engine in CUPS b
CUPS 1.4.4, when running in certain Linux distributions such as Debian GNU/Linux, stores the web interface administrator
OpenPrinting CUPS is a standards-based, open source printing system for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems. Rat
Due to failure in validating the length provided by an attacker-crafted PPD PostScript document, CUPS and libppd are sus
OpenPrinting CUPS is an open source printing system for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems. Rated medium severi
OpenPrinting CUPS is an open source printing system for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems. Rated medium severi
OpenPrinting CUPS is an open source printing system for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems. Rated medium severi
OpenPrinting CUPS is an open source printing system. Rated medium severity (CVSS 5.5), this vulnerability is no authenti
The CUPS AppArmor profile incorrectly confined the dnssd backend due to use of hard links. Rated high severity (CVSS 8.8
Integer underflow in the cupsRasterReadPixels function in filter/raster.c in CUPS before 2.0.2 allows remote attackers t
A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. Rated medium severity (CVSS 6.7), this vulnerability is low
EUVD-2026-102208
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
GitHub
Exploit-DB