VulnerabilityPublished 14 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-19636: CWE-1270

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-19636· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: 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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 13 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-pgh6-g8gg-ch94

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Tenable, Inc.Security Center	Affected <6.9.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

The description states the issue has been addressed by improving token randomness, so applying the vendor's update or patch that implements this fix is recommended once available.

Description

A vulnerability was identified where CSRF tokens were generated using a predictable method, which could reduce their effectiveness as a security control. The issue has been addressed by improving the randomness and entropy of token generation. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 5.3, indicating a medium severity level. No affected versions or patch information are explicitly provided in the available data.

Impact

The vulnerability reduces the effectiveness of CSRF tokens as a security control, potentially allowing attackers to bypass CSRF protections and perform unauthorized actions that affect data integrity. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability according to the CVSS vector. No known exploits are reported in the wild.

Summary

CVE-2026-19636 describes a vulnerability involving the generation of CSRF tokens using a predictable method, potentially weakening the security mechanism designed to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks. The vulnerability was mitigated by enhancing the randomness and entropy in the token generation process. The CVSS 3.1 vector indicates the attack requires network access, high attack complexity, no privileges, and user interaction, with no confidentiality or availability impact but a high integrity impact.

CWE-1270Generation of Incorrect Security Tokens (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product implements a Security Token mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. However, the Security Tokens generated in the system are incorrect.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Generation of Security Tokens should be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.; Security-Token definition and programming flow should be tested in pre-silicon and post-silicon testing.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploit Non-Production Interfaces (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Improperly Controlled Hardware Security Identifiers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Aug 2026, 05:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1270

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats