VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-12616: Eclipse CSI – PIA · Log Injection

Affects Eclipse CSI – PIASource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: 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: 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: 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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Jun 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Eclipse FoundationEclipse CSI - PIA	Affected <=0.2.1	Fixed in–
GitHubEclipse CSI - PIA`pkg:github/Eclipse CSI - PIA`Other threats	Affected <=0.2.1	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, users should be aware of the risk of log forgery and consider additional monitoring or validation of log integrity. Avoid relying solely on these logs for authentication verification. Implementing input validation or output encoding for log entries involving untrusted data is recommended once a patch is released.

Description

The /v1/upload/sbom endpoint extracts the iss claim from the attacker-supplied JWT with signature verification disabled, then interpolates that string into three log statements before any validation gate. Because the configured log format ("%(asctime)s - %(name)s - %(levelname)s - %(message)s") renders newlines literally, an unauthenticated attacker can forge log records that are byte-for-byte indistinguishable from PIA's genuine "Successfully authenticated project" message. PIA is an authentication broker whose logs are explicitly relied upon for incident response (DESIGN.md §5.4 lists "Token verifications" and "Errors" as events to log), so the ability to plant fake auth-success entries directly undermines the audit trail the service exists to produce.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can inject malicious content into logs, forging authentication success entries. This undermines the trustworthiness of logs that are critical for incident response and security auditing, potentially allowing attackers to cover their tracks or mislead defenders about authentication events. There is no indication of direct system compromise or privilege escalation from this vulnerability alone.

Summary

The vulnerability involves improper output neutralization for logs (CWE-117) in Eclipse CSI - PIA. Specifically, the /v1/upload/sbom endpoint processes the iss claim from JWT tokens with signature verification disabled, then interpolates this unvalidated string into log statements. Because the log format renders newlines literally, an attacker can inject crafted strings to create forged log entries indistinguishable from genuine authentication success messages. This compromises the reliability of audit trails used for security incident investigations.

CWE-117Improper Output Neutralization for Logs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A09:2025: Security Logging & Alerting Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Application Logging Vocabulary (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V7.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Audit Log Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Log Injection-Tampering-Forging (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/work_items/145 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Jun 2026, 13:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-117

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats