CVE-2026-1117VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-1117: parisneo/lollms · Improper Access Control

Affects parisneo/lollmsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H

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

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 2026-10-26.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
parisneoparisneo/lollms	Affected ≥ unspecified, < 2.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-1117, organizations should immediately audit all Socket.IO event handlers within parisneo/lollms implementations to ensure authentication and authorization checks are enforced before processing any client requests. Specifically, the add_events function must be updated to include robust access control mechanisms preventing unauthenticated or unauthorized access. Redesigning the server’s state management to avoid reliance on global flags like lollmsElfServer.busy and lollmsElfServer.cancel_gen is essential; adopting per-client state tracking or thread-safe concurrency controls will reduce race conditions and state corruption risks. Network-level controls such as firewall rules or Web Application Firewalls (WAF) can be employed to restrict access to the vulnerable endpoints until patches are available. Monitoring and logging Socket.IO event usage can help detect anomalous or abusive behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Organizations should also track vendor updates and apply patches promptly once released. Conducting penetration testing focused on Socket.IO event handling can validate the effectiveness of implemented mitigations.

Description

CVE-2026-1117 is a high-severity vulnerability in the parisneo/lollms software, specifically in the lollms_generation_events.py component. It allows unauthenticated clients to access sensitive Socket. IO events such as generate_text and cancel_generation without any authentication or authorization. This improper access control enables attackers to perform resource-intensive or state-changing operations, potentially causing denial of service, state corruption, and race conditions. The vulnerability is exacerbated by the use of insecure global flags for state management, allowing one client’s actions to impact others. No user interaction or authentication is required to exploit this flaw, making it easily exploitable remotely. The vulnerability impacts the availability and integrity of the service but does not directly affect confidentiality. European organizations using parisneo/lollms are at risk, especially those relying on this software for critical operations. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to service availability and integrity, especially for those deploying parisneo/lollms in production environments or critical workflows. Attackers can remotely trigger resource-intensive operations without authentication, potentially leading to denial of service conditions that disrupt business continuity. The flawed global state management can cause unpredictable behavior affecting multiple users simultaneously, undermining trust in the service and possibly causing data or process inconsistencies. Organizations in sectors such as technology, research, or any domain utilizing parisneo/lollms for AI or text generation services may experience operational disruptions. Additionally, the lack of confidentiality impact means sensitive data leakage is less of a concern, but the integrity and availability impacts alone can cause significant reputational and financial damage. The ease of exploitation and network accessibility increase the threat level, making it critical for European entities to address this vulnerability promptly.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
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)
Authorization (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
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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 9 Feb 2026, 10:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats