VulnerabilityPublished 23 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-33286: graphiti · Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources

Affects graphitiSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 1.10.2 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.10.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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 23 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 graphiti to 1.10.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
graphiti-apigraphiti	Affected <1.10.2	Fixed in 1.10.2

AI-suggested

Upgrade Graphiti to version 1.10.2 or later immediately to apply the official patch that fixes the validation flaw.
Restrict access to Graphiti write endpoints (create, update, delete) so they are not exposed to untrusted or unauthenticated users.
Implement strong authentication and authorization controls on all write operations to ensure only authorized users can perform modifications.
Use Rails strong parameters or equivalent mechanisms to whitelist and validate all incoming JSONAPI payload parameters, preventing arbitrary method names from being processed.
Conduct thorough code reviews and testing to verify that no other dynamic method invocations are exposed to user input without validation.
Monitor application logs for unusual or unexpected method calls or payloads targeting Graphiti endpoints.
Consider implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious JSONAPI payloads attempting to exploit this vulnerability.

Description

Graphiti is a framework that sits on top of models and exposes them via a JSON:API-compliant interface. Versions prior to 1.10.2 have an arbitrary method execution vulnerability that affects Graphiti's JSONAPI write functionality. An attacker can craft a malicious JSONAPI payload with arbitrary relationship names to invoke any public method on the underlying model instance, class or its associations. Any application exposing Graphiti write endpoints (create/update/delete) to untrusted users is affected. The `Graphiti::Util::ValidationResponse#all_valid?` method recursively calls `model.send(name)` using relationship names taken directly from user-supplied JSONAPI payloads, without validating them against the resource's configured sideloads. This allows an attacker to potentially run any public method on a given model instance, on the instance class or associated instances or classes, including destructive operations. This is patched in Graphiti v1.10.2. Users should upgrade as soon as possible. Some workarounds are available. Ensure Graphiti write endpoints (create/update) are not accessible to untrusted users and/or apply strong authentication and authorization checks before any write operation is processed, for example use Rails strong parameters to ensure only valid parameters are processed.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary public methods on application models without authentication, leading to severe integrity and availability impacts. Attackers can perform unauthorized data modifications, deletions, or other destructive actions, potentially compromising application logic and data consistency. Since the flaw affects the core write functionality of Graphiti, any web application exposing these endpoints to untrusted users is at risk. This can result in data corruption, loss, or denial of service. The critical CVSS score of 9.1 reflects the high impact and ease of exploitation. Organizations relying on Graphiti for API endpoints may face significant operational disruption, reputational damage, and compliance violations if exploited.

CWE-913Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2021: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or executable instructions or statements.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of acceptable values.
Implementation · Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor the code so that it does not need to be dynamically managed.
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 24 Mar 2026, 01:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-913

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats