VulnerabilityPublished 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-33533: nicolargo glances · Permissive Cross-domain Policy with Untrusted Domains

Affects nicolargo glancesSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 4.5.3 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.5.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 2 Apr 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 nicolargo glances to 4.5.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
nicolargoglances	Affected <4.5.3	Fixed in 4.5.3
PyPIglances`pkg:pypi/glances`Other threats	Affected <4.5.3	Fixed in 4.5.3

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in Glances version 4.5.3. Users should upgrade to version 4.5.3 or later to remediate the issue. No additional mitigations are required once the update is applied.

Description

Glances is an open-source system cross-platform monitoring tool. Prior to version 4.5.3, the Glances XML-RPC server (activated with glances -s or glances --server) sends Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * on every HTTP response. Because the XML-RPC handler does not validate the Content-Type header, an attacker-controlled webpage can issue a CORS "simple request" (POST with Content-Type: text/plain) containing a valid XML-RPC payload. The browser sends the request without a preflight check, the server processes the XML body and returns the full system monitoring dataset, and the wildcard CORS header lets the attacker's JavaScript read the response. The result is complete exfiltration of hostname, OS version, IP addresses, CPU/memory/disk/network stats, and the full process list including command lines (which often contain tokens, passwords, or internal paths). This issue has been patched in version 4.5.3.

Impact

An attacker can remotely exfiltrate detailed system information including hostname, operating system version, IP addresses, CPU, memory, disk, and network statistics, as well as the full process list with command line arguments. This data may contain sensitive tokens, passwords, or internal paths, leading to significant information disclosure. The vulnerability does not require authentication and can be exploited via a malicious webpage without user privileges on the target system.

Summary

The vulnerability in nicolargo Glances (CVE-2026-33533) involves a permissive CORS policy combined with insufficient Content-Type validation in the XML-RPC server component. When running versions before 4.5.3 with the server mode enabled, the application sets Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * on all HTTP responses. Because the XML-RPC handler accepts POST requests with Content-Type: text/plain without preflight checks, an attacker can craft a malicious webpage that sends a valid XML-RPC payload to the server. The server processes the request and returns comprehensive system monitoring data, which the attacker’s JavaScript can read due to the wildcard CORS header. This leads to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive system information. The issue is resolved by updating to Glances version 4.5.3.

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 9 Apr 2026, 22:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-942

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats