VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-126192: Soup Sieve · General sibling combinator inside :has() matches untrusted HTML in quadratic time

Affects redoSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-126192· Medium 6.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 21:17 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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 4.0	6.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 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 12 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 13 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
Homebrewredo`pkg:brew/redo`Other threats	Affected >=0.42d_2	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

This behavior is expected given the design of :has() and the general sibling combinator and is not classified as a bug. Users should carefully apply :has() selectors, avoiding anchors with many children and preferring combinators like > or + inside :has() to limit traversal. Applications should avoid running such selectors on untrusted HTML or implement input validation to deny selectors containing :has() with general sibling combinators. Wrapping selector evaluations in timeouts can prevent long-running processes.

Description

CVE-2026-126192 describes a performance issue in Soup Sieve when using a CSS selector with a general sibling combinator inside :has(), such as div:has(a ~ b). This selector runs in quadratic time relative to the number of sibling elements when matched against untrusted HTML, causing significant CPU delays. The issue arises because the evaluation cannot short-circuit when the sibling element is absent, leading to nested scans. This can stall applications processing untrusted HTML with such selectors. The vulnerability impacts availability by enabling CPU exhaustion on relatively small inputs. Mitigation involves careful use of :has() selectors, avoiding anchors with many children, and preferring tighter combinators like > or + inside :has(). No official patch is indicated; this is a known performance characteristic rather than a bug.

Impact

The vulnerability impacts availability by allowing an attacker to cause high CPU usage and significant processing delays when an application evaluates a selector with a general sibling combinator inside :has() against attacker-controlled HTML. This can stall or degrade the performance of the application for minutes on relatively small HTML inputs with a few thousand sibling elements. There is no indication of confidentiality or integrity impact. The issue is a performance-related denial of service vector.

Summary

Soup Sieve's implementation of the CSS :has() pseudo-class combined with a general sibling combinator (~) inside the selector, e.g., div:has(a ~ b), exhibits O(n²) time complexity when matching against untrusted HTML with many sibling elements. The quadratic behavior occurs because the algorithm performs nested scans for each candidate 'a' element to find a following sibling 'b', and cannot short-circuit when 'b' is absent. This leads to CPU-intensive processing that scales quadratically with the number of siblings, demonstrated by timing tests that show processing time quadruples as sibling count doubles. This performance issue can cause denial of service by stalling applications that run such selectors on attacker-controlled HTML. The adjacent sibling combinator (+) does not exhibit this problem, remaining linear. The issue is inherent to the design of :has() and the general sibling combinator and is not unique to Soup Sieve. Mitigation recommendations include limiting the use of :has() with general sibling combinators on large sibling sets, using more constrained selectors, and potentially denying or timing out queries containing risky selectors.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Nov 2026, 21:17 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats