VulnerabilityPublished 3 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-63489: yeti · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic

Affects yetiSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 19:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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	7.6

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

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

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: 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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Nov 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 3 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
yeti-platformyeti	Affected <=2.5.0	Fixed in–
GitHubyeti-platform/yeti`pkg:github/yeti-platform/yeti`Other threats	Affected <=2.5.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Users should restrict access to the affected endpoints to trusted users only and monitor for suspicious activity. Review and harden input validation and sanitization in the affected query construction code. Follow vendor advisories for updates and patches once released.

Description

Yeti-platform versions 2.5.0 and earlier contain an injection vulnerability in the way user-controlled sorting fields and filter_aliases are handled in ArangoDB AQL queries. Authenticated low-privileged users can craft inputs to manipulate query logic, potentially exposing internal data and causing resource exhaustion. No fix is currently available.

Impact

The vulnerability allows a low-privileged authenticated user to inject malicious AQL subexpressions into database queries, potentially exposing sensitive internal data, altering search logic, enumerating schema information, and causing denial of service through resource exhaustion. Confidentiality is highly impacted, integrity is partially impacted, and availability is also partially impacted according to the CVSS vector.

Summary

Yeti-platform (version 2.5.0 and earlier) improperly neutralizes special elements in data query logic (CWE-943) by directly interpolating user-controlled sorting fields and filter_aliases attribute paths into ArangoDB AQL identifiers and expressions. This occurs in core/database_arango.py and affects multiple POST endpoints related to searching observables, entities, indicators, DFIQ, general search, and graph search. An attacker with low privileges can send crafted values to these endpoints, causing attacker-controlled AQL subexpressions to be parsed and evaluated. This can lead to error oracles, evaluation of expressions against internal collections (such as users), alteration of intended search logic, schema enumeration, and excessive consumption of database resources. Arbitrary database writes are not confirmed. No fixed version is available as of the latest review.

CWE-943Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product generates a query intended to access or manipulate data in a data store such as a database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that can modify the intended logic of the query.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
NoSQL Injection (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 3 Nov 2026, 19:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-943

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats