CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
mediumCross-site Scriptingpublic exploit

CVE-2026-104900

CVE-2026-104900 — MISP Stored XSS via Unescaped Count Field Value in Remote Event Preview Index

MISP contains a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the index table rendering of the remote event preview. The count field template escaped the associated link URL but rendered the field value without HTML encoding. An attacker with the ability to create or modify events on a linked (remote) MISP server could craft an event identifier containing HTML or JavaScript markup. When a user on the local MISP instance views the remote event preview index, the unescaped value is rendered directly in the browser, allowing arbitrary script execution in the victim's session. Preconditions: - A linked/remote MISP server is configured and connected to the local instance. - The attacker has sufficient access on the linked server to create or modify an event with a crafted identifier. - A victim user on the local instance views the remote event preview index page. Impact: - Execution of arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the MISP web application. - Potential session hijacking, data exfiltration, or unauthorized actions performed on behalf of the authenticated user. Affected versions: <2.5.48.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, MISP (CNA), GitHub, 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

Affects

MISP

MISP

CVSS base

5.3

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

The vulnerability is remediated by applying HTML entity encoding to the count field value before it is rendered in the view template. This ensures that any HTML or script markup contained in the value from a remote server is neutralized and displayed as inert text rather than being interpreted by the browser.

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.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
MISPMISP0 to < 2.5.48Vulnerable

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

None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.3CVSS 4.0medium——MISP (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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.

MITRE

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.

CAPEC-85 · AJAX FingerprintingCAPEC-591 · Reflected XSSCAPEC-63 · Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)CAPEC-209 · XSS Using MIME Type MismatchCAPEC-592 · Stored XSSCAPEC-588 · DOM-Based XSS

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.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /remote.
  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable MISP.
  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.
web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 5.3 (AV:N)

    Oct 2, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Oct 2, 2026 · NVD

  4. CVE published by MITRE.

    Oct 2, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

1 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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-2026-104900 is MISP Stored XSS via Unescaped Count Field Value in Remote Event Preview Index, 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-2026-104900. 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 5.3 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.