VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 9 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-32634: Glances Central Browser Autodiscovery Leaks Reusable Credentials to Zeroconf-Spoofed Servers

Affects glancesSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-32634· High 8.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 4.5.6 soon.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 19:50 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 4.5.6

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: 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: 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 18 Mar 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 9 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 glances to 4.5.6.

Patches and advisories

github.com/nicolargo/glances/commit/61d38eec521703e41e4933d18d5a5ef6f854abd5 (opens in a new tab)

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewglances`pkg:brew/glances`Other threats	Affected <4.5.6	Fixed in 4.5.6

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Glances to version 4.5.6 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. The patch changes the handling of Zeroconf-advertised server names to prevent using untrusted names for connection URIs and password lookups. No other mitigation is indicated or necessary once the update is applied.

Description

Glances versions prior to 4.5.6 in Central Browser mode are vulnerable to credential leakage via Zeroconf spoofing. The software uses an untrusted advertised server name to build connection URIs and as a key for saved passwords, allowing an attacker on the same local network to receive reusable authentication secrets by advertising a fake Glances service. This affects both background polling and REST/WebUI interactions. The issue is fixed in version 4.5.6.

Impact

An attacker on the same local network can spoof Zeroconf advertisements to impersonate a Glances server, causing the client to send stored reusable authentication credentials to the attacker. This results in a high impact confidentiality breach, allowing unauthorized access to Glances services without user interaction. The integrity and availability impacts are not indicated. The CVSS v3.1 score is 8.1 (High), reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and high confidentiality and integrity impact.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…