MISP mispguard is a security filtering proxy that inspects and blocks MISP feed responses…
CVE-2026-116372 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in misp-guard from MISP, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 7.7 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected misp-guard versions: 1.3 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 0.36% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of misp-guard you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| MISP | misp-guard | 1.3 and earlier | Not 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
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- HighSerious 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:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/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
MISP mispguard is a security filtering proxy that inspects and blocks MISP feed responses based on configured rules. The process_feed_response method in src/mispguard.py was responsible for evaluating feed responses before they reached the MISP instance. The original logic only explicitly handled the case where the HTTP status code was not 200 by passing the response through without filtering, on the assumption that non-200 responses would not carry ingestible event data. However, HTTP 2xx status codes other than 200 (such as 201 Created, 203 Non-Authoritative Information, and 206 Partial Content) were also passed through unfiltered. Because MISP may still ingest content from these responses, a malicious or compromised feed host could return a 203 or 206 status code with arbitrary content, effectively bypassing all of mispguard's filtering rules. This allowed unfiltered or malicious feed data to be ingested into the MISP instance, undermining the security controls that mispguard is designed to enforce. The vulnerability requires the attacker to control or compromise a feed endpoint configured in the MISP instance. No authentication or user interaction is required beyond the feed polling mechanism already in place.
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.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in misp-guard
- 7.1 High severity
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.