misp: Missing Authorization
CVE-2026-85533 is a high-severity missing authorization vulnerability in misp, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 7.6 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 misp versions: 2.5.45 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 0.37% 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 you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
Affected products and versions
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
- PresentThe target must be in a specific state or configuration for the attack to work.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious 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)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo 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:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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
An authorization flaw in MISP allowed an authenticated user to submit a sharing_group_id without verifying that the user was authorized to use the referenced Sharing Group. In several attribute and Galaxy Cluster creation and editing workflows, validation of the submitted Sharing Group was performed only when the request explicitly set the distribution field to 4 ("Sharing Group"). An attacker could therefore craft a request containing a sharing_group_id while omitting the distribution parameter, or otherwise avoiding the distribution == 4 condition, causing the Sharing Group authorization check to be skipped. This could allow a user with permission to create or modify the affected MISP objects to associate data with a Sharing Group that they are not authorized to use. Depending on the affected object's existing distribution settings and subsequent processing, this could bypass intended information-sharing boundaries and result in unauthorized placement or distribution of data to members of another Sharing Group. The issue affected attribute attachment and editing operations as well as Galaxy Cluster creation and editing. The fix ensures that authorization is performed whenever a non-empty sharing_group_id is submitted, independently of the distribution parameter. It also centralizes the authorization decision in SharingGroup::canUse() and explicitly rejects empty Sharing Group identifiers rather than allowing them to be interpreted as an unrestricted query.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- 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, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in misp
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
Recent Missing Authorization vulnerabilities
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 8.5 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.