VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jun 2026Updated 8 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-42543: dfir-iris iris-web · Trusting HTTP Permission Methods on the Server Side

Affects dfir-iris iris-webSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.4.28 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.4.28

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 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 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 iris-web and dfir-iris/iris-web to 2.4.28.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
dfir-irisiris-web	Affected <2.4.28	Fixed in 2.4.28
GitHubdfir-iris/iris-web`pkg:github/dfir-iris/iris-web`Other threats	Affected <2.4.28	Fixed in 2.4.28

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to dfir-iris iris-web version 2.4.28 or later, which contains the patch addressing this vulnerability. Patch status is not explicitly confirmed beyond the version note, so verify with the vendor advisory for current guidance.

Description

IRIS is a web collaborative platform that helps incident responders share technical details during investigations. Versions prior to 2.4.28 are vulnerable to a cross-site request forgery attack, because they use the HTTP method `GET` to change state on the server. Version 2.4.28 contains a patch.

Impact

An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause a user to unknowingly perform state-changing actions on the iris-web platform by leveraging the unsafe use of the GET method. The impact is limited to integrity loss without confidentiality or availability impact, as indicated by the CVSS vector (C:N/I:L/A:N).

Summary

The dfir-iris iris-web platform versions before 2.4.28 are vulnerable to a CSRF attack because they improperly use the HTTP GET method to perform state changes on the server side. This violates safe HTTP method usage principles and can allow an attacker to trick a user into executing unwanted actions. The vulnerability is identified as CWE-650 (Trusting HTTP Permission Methods on the Server Side). Version 2.4.28 includes a patch that corrects this behavior.

CWE-650Trusting HTTP Permission Methods on the Server Side (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2021: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The server contains a protection mechanism that assumes that any URI that is accessed using HTTP GET will not cause a state change to the associated resource.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
The access control needs to be properly enforced in the application. No assumptions should be made that only HTTP DELETE, PUT, POST, and other methods have the power to alter the representation of the resource being accessed in the request.
System Configuration
Configure ACLs on the server side to ensure that proper level of access control is defined for each accessible resource representation.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.5 (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 12 Jun 2026, 09:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-650

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats