VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-92932: misp sachertortephp · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects misp sachertortephpSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium : upgrade to 1c2da20cbe3f1e2a91458fe9a017823b7273fdac when convenient.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 11:03 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1c2da20cbe3f1e2a91458fe9a017823b7273fdac

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 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 misp sachertortephp to 1c2da20cbe3f1e2a91458fe9a017823b7273fdac.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
mispsachertortephp	Affected =0	Fixed in 1c2da20cbe3f1e2a91458fe9a017823b7273fdac
GitHubsachertortephp`pkg:github/sachertortephp`Other threats	Affected =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

If you cannot patch yet, review and restrict access to the Xml::build() method to ensure that untrusted input cannot reach it with the readFile option set to false. Consider implementing additional input validation or network egress controls to prevent unauthorized outbound HTTPS requests.

Description

In the MISP sachertortephp library, the Xml::build() static method in lib/Cake/Utility/Xml.php contains a logic error in the conditional that gates network-based XML fetching. The original condition was written as: $options['readFile'] && strpos($input, 'http://') === 0 || strpos($input, 'https://') === 0. Because PHP's && operator has higher precedence than ||, the expression is evaluated as ($options['readFile'] && strpos($input, 'http://') === 0) || strpos($input, 'https://') === 0. As a result, when a caller explicitly sets the readFile option to false to disable file and URL reading, an input string beginning with https:// still satisfies the condition and triggers a network fetch via HttpSocket (configured to follow up to 10 redirects). The http:// branch is correctly gated by the readFile flag, but the https:// branch is not. An attacker who can influence the $input parameter passed to Xml::build() can therefore force the application to issue an outbound HTTPS request to an attacker-controlled or internal URL, even though the caller intended to suppress all remote reads. The fetched response is parsed as XML and may be returned to the caller, enabling information disclosure from internal services or external targets. This constitutes a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) weakness with an information-disclosure impact. The vulnerability requires that the code path in Xml::build() be reachable with attacker-controlled input and that the readFile option be set to false (or the caller expects it to be false).

Impact

An attacker can cause the application to make unintended HTTPS requests to arbitrary URLs, including internal services or attacker-controlled endpoints, potentially leading to information disclosure. The vulnerability does not require user interaction but does require some level of privilege (PR:L) and user interaction (UI:P). The impact is limited to information disclosure without direct code execution or system compromise.

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-670Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.

References

github.com/MISP/sachertortephp/commit/1c2da20cbe3f1e2a91458fe9a017823b7273fdac (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Sep 2026, 13:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918, CWE-670

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats