CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-106512NVD status: Deferred

The CakeResponse::download() method in lib/Cake/Network/CakeResponse.php constructs a…

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-106512 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in sachertortephp from MISP, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.4 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected sachertortephp versions: 1c2da20cbe3f1e2a91458fe9a017823b7273fdac and earlier. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.33% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of sachertortephp you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
MISPsachertortephp1c2da20cbe3f1e2a91458fe9a017823b7273fdac and earlierNot stated

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Attack requirements
NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
LowLimited loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
Integrity (vulnerable system)
HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
Availability (vulnerable system)
NoneNo loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
Confidentiality (other systems)
HighSerious loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Integrity (other systems)
LowLimited loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Availability (other systems)
NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N/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. Scored by CNA.

Official description

The CakeResponse::download() method in lib/Cake/Network/CakeResponse.php constructs a Content-Disposition header by directly interpolating a caller-supplied filename into a quoted-string value without sanitization. Two distinct injection vectors exist in the unpatched code. First, if the filename contains C0 control characters (CR or LF), PHP refuses to emit the entire Content-Disposition header, silently dropping the attachment disposition. The response body is then served with its own Content-Type (for example text/html for an .html attachment) and renders inline in the browser on the application origin, creating a stored cross-site scripting condition. The commit message notes this is reachable even when the download_attachments_on_load setting is enabled, meaning a victim merely needs to view a page that triggers the download. Second, a double-quote character in the filename terminates the quoted-string value early, permitting injection of additional Content-Disposition parameters. The affected code path covers all callers of CakeResponse::download(), including attribute downloads, proposal downloads, and restSearch exports. An authenticated user who can create or upload an attachment with a crafted filename (for example through MISP attribute naming or proposal attachment naming) can store the malicious filename. When any other authenticated user views the affected page, the unsanitized filename is reflected into the HTTP response header, resulting in header manipulation and potential execution of arbitrary HTML or JavaScript in the context of the application origin. The security impact is equivalent to a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability, allowing session hijacking, data exfiltration, and unauthorized actions on behalf of the victim.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
  • Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

More Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-20)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.