CVE-2026-85239 — Improper Input Validation in Misp-project Misp
A vulnerability in MISP's event template handling allowed an authenticated user with permission to create or modify event templates to bypass validation of the template definition field. The EventTemplate::beforeValidate() method only performed semantic validation when the supplied definition was already represented as an array. If a caller instead supplied a pre-encoded string, including malformed JSON or JSON representing an unexpected data type, the value bypassed validateDefinition() and only needed to satisfy the generic notBlank validation rule. As a result, an invalid event template definition could be stored persistently in the database. When event templates were subsequently retrieved, EventTemplate::afterFind() attempted to decode the stored definition using JsonTool::decode() without handling decoding failures. A definition containing invalid JSON could therefore trigger an exception during retrieval. Because the event template index is available to all authenticated users, a single malicious or malformed template could make the event template listing and other functionality relying on EventTemplate queries return HTTP 500 errors until the offending database row was manually repaired. Valid JSON representing an unexpected type, rather than the expected JSON object, could similarly result in invalid data reaching downstream consumers. The vulnerability can therefore be exploited by a user capable of saving event templates to persist malformed template data and cause a persistent denial of service against event-template functionality for other users. The patch enforces that event template definitions must be supplied as structured objects before saving and always applies semantic validation. On retrieval, malformed JSON and definitions that do not decode to the expected structure are caught, logged, and replaced with an empty definition, preventing a malformed database entry from breaking all event template queries. Poisoning doesn't seem reachable according to the lead developer.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
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.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
- Documented patch — github.com (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.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Misp-project Misp).
- Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (input validation), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Misp-project | Misp | ≤ 2.5.45 | Vulnerable | NIST National Vulnerability Database |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | CVSS 4.0 | High | — | — | 5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 2.8 | 3.6 | nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
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).
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Record published
- Fix documented
- CVSS changed · 6.5
- Source status changed · → Analyzed
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
1 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-86452 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in Misp-project Misp Sep 7, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-86441 Exposure of Sensitive Information in Misp-project Misp Sep 7, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-86440 Improper Input Validation in Misp-project Misp Sep 7, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-86451 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (IDOR) in Misp-project Misp Sep 7, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-86417 Exposure of Sensitive Information in Misp-project Misp Sep 7, 2026
- Critical CVE-2026-86419 Exposure of Sensitive Information in Misp-project Misp Sep 7, 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 FIRST EPSS score.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- 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-2026-85239 is "Improper Input Validation in Misp-project Misp", rated Medium. It affects Misp (Misp-project); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 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.