VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2026Updated 21 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-54565: edwardkim rhwp · Information Exposure

Affects edwardkim rhwpSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium : upgrade to 0.7.15 when convenient.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.7.15

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 17 Sep 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 1 Nov 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 edwardkim rhwp to 0.7.15.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
edwardkimrhwp	Affected <0.7.15	Fixed in 0.7.15

AI-suggested

Users should update rhwp to version 0.7.15 or later and the Chrome and Firefox extensions to version 0.2.4 or later to remediate this vulnerability. These updates include validation of message senders and URL schemes before privileged fetches, preventing unauthorized access to local and private network resources. No additional mitigation is required once updated.

Description

rhwp is an HWP viewer and editor implemented in Rust and WebAssembly. Prior to rhwp 0.7.15 and rhwp Chrome and Firefox extension 0.2.4, the browser extensions use an all-URLs host permission to detect HWP and HWPX links on visited pages, but the service workers do not validate message senders, URL schemes, or destination addresses before privileged fetches. The affected paths are rhwp-chrome/manifest.json, rhwp-chrome/content-script.js, rhwp-chrome/sw/message-router.js, rhwp-chrome/sw/thumbnail-extractor.js, rhwp-firefox/manifest.json, rhwp-firefox/content-script.js, rhwp-firefox/sw/message-router.js, and rhwp-firefox/sw/thumbnail-extractor.js. An untrusted page can make the fetch-file and extract-thumbnail handlers request localhost or private-network resources. When a target HWP or HWPX file contains an extractable PrvImage, the extension returns the preview as a data URI in page-readable DOM, allowing page script to read it. The flaw also permits internal-resource existence and port probing and extension presence or version fingerprinting. Exploitation requires a user to visit an untrusted page while the extension is enabled, and preview disclosure is limited to an extractable PrvImage. This issue is fixed in rhwp 0.7.15 and rhwp Chrome and Firefox extension 0.2.4.

Impact

An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to access preview images embedded in local or private network HWP/HWPX files, potentially exposing sensitive image data to unauthorized web pages. The flaw also allows internal network reconnaissance through resource existence and port probing and enables fingerprinting of the extension's presence and version. However, exploitation requires user interaction (visiting a malicious page) and the preview disclosure is limited to extractable preview images only. The CVSS score is 4.7 (medium severity) reflecting limited confidentiality impact and no integrity or availability impact.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-359Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly prevent a person's private, personal information from being accessed by actors who either (1) are not explicitly authorized to access the information or (2) do not have the implicit consent of the person about whom the information is collected.
Requirements
Identify and consult all relevant regulations for personal privacy. An organization may be required to comply with certain federal and state regulations, depending on its location, the type of business it conducts, and the nature of any private data it handles.
Architecture and Design
Carefully evaluate how secure design may interfere with privacy, and vice versa. Security and privacy concerns often seem to compete with each other. From a security perspective, all important operations should be recorded so that any anomalous activity can later be identified.
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 Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V10.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Evercookie (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Probe iOS Screenshots (opens in a new tab)
Shoulder Surfing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1385Missing Origin Validation in WebSockets (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product uses a WebSocket, but it does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
Implementation
Enable CORS-like access restrictions by verifying the 'Origin' header during the WebSocket handshake.
Implementation
Use a randomized CSRF token to verify requests.
Implementation
Use TLS to securely communicate using 'wss' (WebSocket Secure) instead of 'ws'.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (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 25 Sep 2026, 03:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200, CWE-359, CWE-918 +1

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats