CVE Intelligence
Medium Injection exploit reference

CVE-2020-26259 — XStream is vulnerable to an Arbitrary File Deletion on the local host when unmarshalling

XStream is a Java library to serialize objects to XML and back again. In XStream before version 1.4.15, is vulnerable to an Arbitrary File Deletion on the local host when unmarshalling. The vulnerability may allow a remote attacker to delete arbitrary know files on the host as log as the executing process has sufficient rights only by manipulating the processed input stream. If you rely on XStream's default blacklist of the Security Framework, you will have to use at least version 1.4.15. The reported vulnerability does not exist running Java 15 or higher. No user is affected, who followed the recommendation to setup XStream's Security Framework with a whitelist! Anyone relying on XStream's default blacklist can immediately switch to a whilelist for the allowed types to avoid the vulnerability. Users of XStream 1.4.14 or below who still want to use XStream default blacklist can use a workaround described in more detailed in the referenced advisories.

Published Dec 15, 2020 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 82.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+15
  • Technical severity (medium)+3
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
82.39%
ahead of 100% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Apache Software Foundation
Struts and 3 more
CVSS base
6.8
Medium · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented mitigation — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented mitigation — x-stream.github.io (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Apache Software Foundation Struts, Debian Debian Linux, Fedoraproject Fedora…).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. Apply the documented mitigations until a definitive fix is available.
  4. EPSS ahead of 100% of scored CVEs: prioritize it in the patch queue.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Apache Software Foundation Struts < 6.0.0 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Debian Debian Linux version 9.0version 10.0 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Fedoraproject Fedora version 33version 34version 35 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Xstream Xstream < 1.4.15 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Xstream Xstream version < 1.4.15 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
6.8 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.2 4.0 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.8 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.2 4.0 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.8 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
6.4 CVSS 2.0 Medium 10.0 4.9 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-78 · OS Command Injection

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 82.39%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · x-stream/xstream
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 6.8
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • 2020
  • CVE published
    Dec 15, 2020 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

9 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Apache Software Foundation
every CVE for this vendor
Injection
same class
CWE-78
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • Critical CVE-2026-104711 Apache Struts: OGNL injection in the legacy RESTful action mapper 10d
  • High CVE-2026-104712 Apache Struts: Disproportionate response size when rendering BigDecimal request parameters 10d
  • Medium CVE-2026-104713 Apache Struts: Unbounded request body read in the REST plugin 10d
  • High CVE-2026-104714 Apache Struts: Shared message formatter exposes date and time values across concurrent requests 10d
  • High CVE-2026-73635 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Apache Software Foundation Struts Aug 15, 2026
  • High CVE-2026-73634 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in Apache Software Foundation Struts Aug 15, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2020-26259 is "XStream is vulnerable to an Arbitrary File Deletion on the local host when unmarshalling", rated Medium. It affects Struts (Apache Software Foundation); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 82.39% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.