VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-77401: zopefoundation AccessControl · Protection Mechanism Failure

Affects zopefoundation AccessControlSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 7.4 when convenient.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 08:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: 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 16 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 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 AccessControl and accesscontrol to 7.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
zopefoundationAccessControl	Affected <7.4	Fixed in 7.4
PyPIaccesscontrol`pkg:pypi/accesscontrol`Other threats	Affected <7.4	Fixed in 7.4

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to AccessControl version 7.4 or later, where this issue is fixed. No other mitigation or workaround is indicated. Since this is a code-level security framework vulnerability, applying the official fix is the recommended remediation.

Description

Zope AccessControl provides a general security framework for use in Zope. Prior to 7.4, applications that allow untrusted users to create and execute AccessControl-controlled Python code do not safely guard str.format and str.format_map when those methods are reached through a str subclass. In both ImplPython.py and cAccessControl.c, Python formatting can recursively access attributes and subscriptions using unrestricted getattr and getitem behavior instead of the policy-restricted getattr and getitem operations. A controlled format string can therefore disclose objects reachable from values available to the formatting operation. This issue is fixed in version 7.4.

Impact

The vulnerability allows disclosure of sensitive objects reachable via Python string formatting operations in AccessControl-controlled code. This can lead to confidentiality breaches by exposing internal objects that should be protected by AccessControl policies. The CVSS 3.1 score is 6.8 (medium severity), reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, high privileges required, no user interaction, and a confidentiality impact without integrity or availability impact.

Summary

CVE-2026-77401 describes a protection mechanism failure in the zopefoundation AccessControl security framework. Before version 7.4, the implementation of Python string formatting in ImplPython.py and cAccessControl.c does not enforce policy restrictions on getattr and getitem operations when these are invoked through str.format or str.format_map on a str subclass. This allows controlled format strings to recursively access and disclose objects accessible from the values used in formatting, bypassing intended security policies. The issue is resolved in version 7.4.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (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 16 Sep 2026, 15:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats