VulnerabilityPublished 27 May 2026

CVE-2026-45046: safedep gryph · Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer

Affects safedep gryphSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 0.7.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.7.0

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 27 May 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 gryph and safedep/gryph to 0.7.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
safedepgryph	Affected <0.7.0	Fixed in 0.7.0
GitHubsafedep/gryph`pkg:github/safedep/gryph`Other threats	Affected <0.7.0	Fixed in 0.7.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade gryph to version 0.7.0 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. Since the vendor advisory indicates the issue is resolved in 0.7.0, applying this official fix is the recommended remediation. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor's versioning information. No additional mitigation steps are indicated.

Description

Gryph provides a security layer for AI coding agents. Prior to 0.7.0, Gryph implements logging levels that determine what content is logged to a local sqlite database. The README incorrectly mentions that the default log level is minimal while it is standard. Source code review shows sensitive file-write content remains in the stored payload as ContentPreview, OldString, or NewString at the default standard logging level and at full. This leads to logging of potentially sensitive file content in the local sqlite database, violating Gryphs sensitive file filter and log level contracts. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.7.0.

Impact

Sensitive file content may be exposed through local logs stored in the sqlite database, potentially leading to confidentiality breaches. The vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability. Exploitation requires local access with low privileges. No known active exploitation has been reported.

Summary

Gryph, a security layer for AI coding agents by safedep, prior to version 0.7.0, improperly logs sensitive file content to a local sqlite database due to incorrect handling of logging levels. The README incorrectly states the default log level as minimal, but it is actually standard, which causes sensitive data to be stored in fields such as ContentPreview, OldString, or NewString. This constitutes a CWE-212 vulnerability (Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer). The issue is resolved in gryph version 0.7.0.

CWE-212Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product stores, transfers, or shares a resource that contains sensitive information, but it does not properly remove that information before the product makes the resource available to unauthorized actors.
Requirements
Clearly specify which information should be regarded as private or sensitive, and require that the product offers functionality that allows the user to cleanse the sensitive information from the resource before it is published or exported to other parties.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation · Operation · Attack Surface Reduction
Some tools can automatically analyze documents to redact, strip, or "sanitize" private information, although some human review might be necessary. Tools may vary in terms of which document formats can be processed.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Windows ::DATA Alternate Data Stream (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/safedep/gryph/security/advisories/GHSA-f3jg-756w-gm35 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 May 2026, 18:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-212

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats