VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2026Updated 24 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-54918: netbox-community devicetype-library · External Control of System or Configuration Setting

Affects netbox-community devicetype-librarySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: 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: 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
netbox-communitydevicetype-library	Affected =< 8980c690097e92f5028c7e6df402b327d827ecd5	Fixed in–
GitHubnetbox-community/devicetype-library`pkg:github/netbox-community/devicetype-library`Other threats	Affected *	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available and has been applied in commit 8980c690097e92f5028c7e6df402b327d827ecd5. Users should update to the patched version of the devicetype-library to remediate this vulnerability.

Description

NetBox Device Type Library is a collection of community-sourced device type definitions for import into NetBox. In the affected repository revisions, NETBOX_DT_LIBRARY_URL in tests/test_configuration.py is a free-form tracked constant that an unauthenticated pull-request author can change before the validation test harness runs. During pytest collection, tests/definitions_test.py passes the value to Repo.clone_from and create_remote("upstream").fetch(), causing blind Git smart-HTTP requests to an attacker-selected host or loading attacker-controlled tests/known-*.json validation caches. The blind request cannot set arbitrary metadata-service headers or return response bodies, and this path does not execute remote Git hooks, but substituted known data can bypass slug, module, and rack uniqueness validation. This vulnerability is fixed in commit 8980c690097e92f5028c7e6df402b327d827ecd5.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an unauthenticated pull-request author to influence test validation by causing blind Git requests to attacker-controlled hosts and loading attacker-controlled validation data. This can bypass certain uniqueness validation checks (slug, module, rack) in the devicetype-library tests. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability, and no remote code execution or arbitrary metadata manipulation is possible via this vector.

CWE-15External Control of System or Configuration Setting (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A02:2025: Security Misconfiguration (opens in a new tab)
One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.
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 · Architecture and Design
Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt at illustrating it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an…
Implementation · Architecture and Design
In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of the attacker.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
XML Schema Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
Manipulate Registry Information (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Registry Run Keys (opens in a new tab)
Schema Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-829Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Vulnerable Dependency Management (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V14.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Serialized Data External Linking (opens in a new tab)
DTD Injection (opens in a new tab)
Local Code Inclusion (opens in a new tab)
PHP Local File Inclusion (opens in a new tab)
Remote Code Inclusion (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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Sep 2026, 02:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-15, CWE-829, CWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats