CVE-2026-92610VulnerabilityPublished 3 Nov 2026

In esmf-sdk-py-aspect-model-loader versions 2.1.2 to 2.2.1, the Aspect Model loader resolves cross-file model

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-92610· High

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 10:44 UTC

Severity

High

Rated High by Threat Radar's AI analysis · CVSS not yet scored by NVD

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

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.

ghsa-cmmf-wccr-xrrh

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Eclipse FoundationEclipse Semantic Modeling Framework (ESMF)	Affected >=2.1.2 <=2.2.1	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.eclipse.emf/org.eclipse.emf.ecore.xmi`pkg:maven/org.eclipse.emf/org.eclipse.emf.ecore.xmi`Other threats	Affected >=2.1.2 <=2.2.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, users should avoid loading untrusted Turtle files that may contain manipulated urn:samm namespace prefixes. Restricting file system permissions to limit access to sensitive directories may reduce risk.

Description

A vulnerability in esmf-sdk-py-aspect-model-loader versions 2.1.2 to 2.2.1 allows the Aspect Model loader to resolve cross-file model references insecurely. It extracts certain components from URNs declared in Turtle files to build directories to scan, which can be manipulated to cause the loader to parse files from arbitrary directories outside the intended model root. This leads to unintended merging of external Turtle files into the model graph.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker to cause the loader to read and merge Turtle files from arbitrary directories outside the intended model root. This can lead to unauthorized inclusion of external data into the model graph, potentially affecting the integrity and trustworthiness of the loaded models. There is no information about exploitation in the wild or direct code execution, but the flaw represents a directory traversal and unauthorized file access risk.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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, 10:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats