What is CVE-2026-33920?

CVE-2026-33920 is Cross-site request forgery in the Guardian/CMC login before 26.3.0. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as CSRF mapped to CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-33920. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-33920 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-33920. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-33920 using CVSS 3.5, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

Workarounds are not confirmed from current sources. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

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. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

lowCSRF

CVE-2026-33920

CVE-2026-33920 — Cross-site request forgery in the Guardian/CMC login before 26.3.0

A cross-site request forgery vulnerability was discovered in the login functionality (both standard and SAML) due to missing validation of the anti-CSRF token. An attacker with a valid account can trick a victim into unknowingly authenticating with the attacker's credentials. Any operation performed by the victim in this state is attributed to the attacker's account, compromising the integrity of the audit trail.

Published Sep 8, 2026Updated Sep 8, 2026Sources: NVD, Nozomi Networks (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

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Nozomi Networks

2 products listed

CVSS base

3.5

low · 2 sources

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade to v26.3.0 or later.

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
Nozomi Networks	Guardian	0 to < 26.3.0	Vulnerable
Nozomi Networks	CMC	0 to < 26.3.0	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

None

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

Low

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

Required

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
3.5	CVSS 3.1	low	2.1	1.4	nozominetworks.com (CNA), Nozomi Networks (CNA), GHSA
5.1	CVSS 4.0	medium	—	—	Nozomi Networks (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A: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-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Bypass Protection Mechanism
Read Application Data
Modify Application Data

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. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-462 · Cross-Domain Search TimingCAPEC-467 · Cross Site IdentificationCAPEC-62 · Cross Site Request ForgeryCAPEC-111 · JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable Guardian, CMC.

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.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 3.5 (AV:N)
Sep 8, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 8, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-ccg2-64fc-r6w8 published (medium)
Sep 8, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 8, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

3 on the record

security.nozominetworks.com/NN-2026:18-01
Vendor Advisory
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33920
NVD
github.com/advisories/GHSA-ccg2-64fc-r6w8
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

Nozomi Networksevery CVE for this vendor
CSRFsame class
CWE-352other 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-2026-33920 is Cross-site request forgery in the Guardian/CMC login before 26.3.0, a low vulnerability affecting Guardian, CMC from Nozomi Networks. 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-2026-33920. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-33920. 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 3.5 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.