CVE Intelligence
Medium Cryptography

CVE-2026-79785 — X-AnyLabeling before 4.0.0-beta.9 Improper Certificate Validation in Model Downloads

X-AnyLabeling's model downloader disabled TLS certificate verification. download_with_retry in anylabeling/services/auto_labeling/model.py built a context with ssl._create_unverified_context() and passed it to urllib.request.urlopen, so neither the certificate chain nor the hostname was checked on any model download, and models are fetched over HTTPS from the project's release host. Any party positioned to intercept that connection could therefore answer it with content of their own choosing. The response is written to a .part file and moved into place with os.replace, and the only post-download check, safe_check_model, validates the file's format rather than its provenance: no hash or signature is compared against an expected value. For an ONNX target the substituted file passes onnx.checker.check_model and is then used for inference, so the attacker chooses the model that produces the application's annotations. For a .pth or .pt target, which the shipped SAM2 video, YOLOE, UPN and open_vision configurations use, the check worker calls torch.load without weights_only, so a substituted file is unpickled and executes code of the attacker's choosing on PyTorch releases predating the weights_only default.

Published Aug 25, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: VulnCheck

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
  • Technical severity (medium)+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
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
CVHub520
X-AnyLabeling
CVSS base
5.9
Medium · 2 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
No
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.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

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 (CVHub520 X-AnyLabeling).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
CVHub520 X-AnyLabeling < 4.0.0-beta.9< 4.0.0b9 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
Unchanged
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
8.2 CVSS 4.0 High — — disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.2 CVSS 4.0 High — — VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
5.9 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.2 3.6 disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.9 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: disclosure@vulncheck.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation

Other CVEs with this weakness →

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).
  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · cvhub520/x-anylabeling
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 5.9
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 25, 2026 · VulnCheck

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

CVHub520
every CVE for this vendor
Cryptography
same class
CWE-295
other pages naming this weakness

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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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-2026-79785 is "X-AnyLabeling before 4.0.0-beta.9 Improper Certificate Validation in Model Downloads", rated Medium. It affects X-AnyLabeling (CVHub520); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.9 describes technical severity. 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.