VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32610: nicolargo glances · Permissive Cross-domain Policy with Untrusted Domains

Affects nicolargo glancesSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 4.5.2 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.5.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 18 Mar 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 30 Oct 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

Upgrade glances and nicolargo/glances to 4.5.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
nicolargoglances	Affected <4.5.2	Fixed in 4.5.2
GitHubnicolargo/glances`pkg:github/nicolargo/glances`Other threats	Affected <4.5.2	Fixed in 4.5.2

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Glances to version 4.5.2 or later, where the CORS configuration issue is fixed.
If immediate upgrade is not possible, disable or restrict access to the Glances REST API from untrusted networks or browsers.
Implement network-level controls such as firewall rules or VPNs to limit API access to trusted clients only.
Review and harden CORS policies to avoid using allow_origins=["*"] with allow_credentials=True; specify explicit trusted origins instead.
Educate users about the risks of visiting untrusted websites while having active sessions with sensitive monitoring tools.
Monitor logs for unusual cross-origin requests or suspicious API access patterns.
Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block malicious cross-origin requests targeting the Glances API.
Conduct regular security assessments of monitoring tools and their configurations to detect similar misconfigurations.

Description

Glances is an open-source system cross-platform monitoring tool. Prior to version 4.5.2, the Glances REST API web server ships with a default CORS configuration that sets `allow_origins=["*"]` combined with `allow_credentials=True`. When both of these options are enabled together, Starlette's `CORSMiddleware` reflects the requesting `Origin` header value in the `Access-Control-Allow-Origin` response header instead of returning the literal `*` wildcard. This effectively grants any website the ability to make credentialed cross-origin API requests to the Glances server, enabling cross-site data theft of system monitoring information, configuration secrets, and command line arguments from any user who has an active browser session with a Glances instance. Version 4.5.2 fixes the issue.

Impact

This vulnerability allows attackers to bypass same-origin policy protections and perform credentialed cross-origin requests to the Glances REST API. The impact includes unauthorized disclosure of sensitive system monitoring data, configuration secrets, and command line arguments, which could facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation, lateral movement, or targeted exploitation of the monitored system. Organizations relying on Glances for system monitoring expose themselves to data theft risks if users access malicious websites while having active Glances sessions. The confidentiality and integrity of system data are at high risk, potentially leading to operational disruption or data breaches. Since the vulnerability does not affect availability, denial-of-service is not a primary concern. The ease of exploitation is moderate, requiring only user interaction via a browser. The scope includes all systems running vulnerable Glances versions with the REST API enabled and accessible to users. This threat is particularly critical in environments where Glances is used for monitoring sensitive or critical infrastructure.

CWE-942Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy with Untrusted Domains (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A02:2025: Security Misconfiguration (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a web-client protection mechanism such as a Content Security Policy (CSP) or cross-domain policy file, but the policy includes untrusted domains with which the web client is allowed to communicate.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Attack Surface Reduction
Define a restrictive Content Security Policy or cross-domain policy file.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Attack Surface Reduction
Avoid using wildcards in the CSP / cross-domain policy file. Any domain matching the wildcard expression will be implicitly trusted, and can perform two-way interaction with the target server.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
For Flash, modify crossdomain.xml to use meta-policy options such as 'master-only' or 'none' to reduce the possibility of an attacker planting extraneous cross-domain policy files on a server.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (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 18 Mar 2026, 17:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-942

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats