CVE-2026-103664
CVE-2026-103664 — MISP Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via Unsanitized Analyst Data Seed Parameter
MISP contains a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the analyst data notes panel. The seed path parameter, supplied by the user via the URL, was passed directly into inline JavaScript within the rendered HTML response without any sanitization or type enforcement. An attacker who can convince an authenticated MISP user to navigate to a crafted URL (for example, via a phishing link) can inject arbitrary JavaScript that executes in the victim's browser context. This may allow the attacker to read session tokens, manipulate the page, or perform actions on behalf of the victim. Preconditions: - The victim must be authenticated to MISP and access the analyst data view for an attribute or object. - The attacker must supply a malicious seed value in the URL path. Impact: - Execution of arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser session. - Potential theft of session credentials or sensitive data visible in the page. - Manipulation of the analyst data interface. Affected: MISP versions prior to the fix (commit 58925dbf0, post v2.5.48).
Published Updated Sources: NVD, MISP (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Exploit code
public exploit, none observed
EPSS
0%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
4.8
medium
Remediation
The vendor's own words where we have them.
The vulnerability is remediated by enforcing integer type on the seed parameter at both the controller layer and the view/template layer. Casting the value to an integer ensures that any non-numeric input (including script payloads) is neutralized before it reaches the inline JavaScript context, eliminating the injection vector.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.
- Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
- Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| MISP | MISP | 0 to < 2.5.48 | Vulnerable |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Scope
X
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Vector
Network
Privileges Req
Low
User Interaction
A
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.8 | CVSS 4.0 | medium | — | — | MISP (CNA) |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N
What this weakness leads to
MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.
CWE-79 · Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Bypass Protection Mechanism
- Read Application Data
- Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Mitigation: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-79Cross-site Scripting
Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Repositories
1
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable MISP.
- Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 4.8 (AV:N)
Oct 1, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Oct 1, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-66pp-jmhc-r9mv published (medium)
Oct 1, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
CVE published by MITRE.
Oct 1, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
3 on the record
- github.com/MISP/MISP/commit/58925dbf0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre, NIST
- nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-103664
NVD
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-66pp-jmhc-r9mv
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
Elsewhere on this site
- MISPevery CVE for this vendor
- Cross-site Scriptingsame class
- CWE-79other 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 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 record1
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-103664 is MISP Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via Unsanitized Analyst Data Seed Parameter, a medium vulnerability affecting MISP from MISP. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-103664. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 4.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.