VulnerabilityPublished 30 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-61739: socfortress CoPilot · Improper Authentication

Affects socfortress CoPilotSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 0.1.77 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 16:03 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	7.5

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.1.77

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 30 Oct 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 CoPilot and socfortress/CoPilot to 0.1.77.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
socfortressCoPilot	Affected <0.1.77	Fixed in 0.1.77
GitHubsocfortress/CoPilot`pkg:github/socfortress/CoPilot`Other threats	Affected <0.1.77	Fixed in 0.1.77

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade socfortress CoPilot to version 0.1.77 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. The fix includes proper role and tenant authorization checks on all relevant endpoints and improved token validation to reject invalid or expired tokens. No additional mitigation is required once the update is applied.

Description

SOCFortress CoPilot focuses on providing a single pane of glass for all your security operations needs. Prior to 0.1.77, the Velociraptor Sigma exclusion-management endpoints in `backend/app/incidents/routes/incident_alert.py` omit role and tenant authorization, and `POST /api/incidents/alerts/create/velo-sigma/exclusion` does not validate credentials. Its `return_username_for_logging` dependency in `backend/app/auth/utils.py` calls `decode_token`, which returns ordinary Invalid token or Expired signature strings on failure, and the dependency passes these strings through instead of rejecting the request. A Bearer header is required, but an arbitrary invalid, expired or forged value can create a suppression rule without a valid account. The collection GET at /create/velo-sigma/exclusion lists exclusions; the read, update and delete routes under `/create/velo-sigma/exclusion/{exclusion_id}`, and the `/velo-sigma/exclusion/{exclusion_id}/toggle` route, use `get_current_user` without role checks, permitting any authenticated `customer_user` to manage every exclusion. In `backend/app/incidents/services/velo_sigma.py`, `process_sigma_alert` calls `check_exclusions` and drops matching enabled alerts before incident creation. A null `customer_code` applies a rule across all tenants. Attackers can suppress detections platform-wide through channel, title or field matching, while low-privilege accounts can enumerate detection-tuning data and modify, disable or delete legitimate exclusions. This issue is fixed in version 0.1.77.

Impact

Attackers can bypass authentication controls to create suppression rules that disable security alerts across all tenants, potentially allowing malicious activity to go undetected. Low-privilege authenticated users can enumerate and manipulate exclusion rules, undermining detection integrity and security operations. This compromises the reliability of incident detection and response within the affected platform.

Summary

The vulnerability in socfortress CoPilot (before version 0.1.77) arises from missing role and tenant authorization in the Velociraptor Sigma exclusion-management API endpoints. Specifically, the POST endpoint for creating exclusion rules does not properly validate credentials, allowing arbitrary invalid, expired, or forged Bearer tokens to create suppression rules without a valid account. Additionally, read, update, delete, and toggle routes use a user retrieval method without enforcing role checks, enabling any authenticated customer_user to manage all exclusions. The backend logic applies exclusion rules globally if the customer_code is null, allowing attackers to suppress alerts platform-wide. This can lead to suppression of legitimate security detections and unauthorized modification of detection tuning data. The issue is resolved in version 0.1.77.

CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 30 Oct 2026, 15:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-287, CWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats