CVE-2026-97863 — misp-modules: Shell Command Injection in MISP cisco_firesight_manager_ACL_rule_export Module via Unescaped Attribute Values
The cisco_firesight_manager_ACL_rule_export module in misp-modules generates a shell script (.sh) that authenticates to and calls the Cisco fireSIGHT Manager API. The module interpolates configuration values (IP address, login, password, domain ID, policy ID) and MISP attribute values (destination IPs, URLs, event info comments) directly into single-quoted shell string assignments without any escaping or sanitization. Because the values are placed inside single-quoted shell strings, any value containing a single-quote character (e.g., a crafted ip-dst or url attribute value submitted to MISP) breaks out of the quoting context, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary shell commands into the exported script. A security analyst who subsequently executes the generated .sh file unmodified would run the injected commands with their own privileges, potentially exposing fireSIGHT Manager credentials, modifying ACL rules, or compromising the analyst workstation. Additionally, the module contained a secondary defect where the variable 'config' was only assigned inside a conditional block but referenced unconditionally afterward, causing a NameError (denial of service) when the request payload lacked a 'config' key. The vulnerability requires the attacker to have the ability to submit MISP events or attributes containing a single-quote character and the victim to execute the exported script. No authentication bypass is required beyond standard MISP event-submission privileges.
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
- EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
- 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.
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.
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.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (MISP Misp-modules).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
- 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.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MISP | Misp-modules | ≤ 3.0.10 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.3 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | 5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.3 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | CIRCL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X (score shown at the top: 5a6e4751-2f3f-4070-9419-94fb35b644e8) 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).
- Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · misp/misp-modules
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 6.3
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- 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-2026-62143 Server-Side Request Forgery protection bypass in misp-modules html_to_markdown via IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses Jul 13, 2026
- Critical CVE-2026-44364 misp-modules website - Missing CSRF protection in the website home blueprint May 13, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-44363 Unsafe remote resource fetching in expansion misp-modules May 13, 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 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-2026-97863 is "misp-modules: Shell Command Injection in MISP cisco_firesight_manager_ACL_rule_export Module via Unescaped Attribute Values", rated Medium. It affects Misp-modules (MISP); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.32% 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.