MISP: Missing Authorization
CVE-2026-91825 is a high-severity missing authorization vulnerability in MISP, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 7.1 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. The record lists version 2.5.46 as the first without the flaw, so updating MISP to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.39% 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
- Update MISP to 2.5.46 or a later version.
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
- 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)
- 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:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/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
Affected versions of MISP fail to authorize a submitted sharing group in a specific event-edit path. The vulnerable logic checked whether the acting user could use a sharing_group_id only when the request explicitly supplied distribution = 4. If the attacker instead omitted distribution but supplied a different sharing_group_id, that authorization branch was skipped. Later, MISP’s field-recovery logic restored the existing event distribution from storage. For events already configured with sharing-group distribution, the unauthorized sharing-group ID could therefore be saved. The fix adds authorization checks in both the controller and Event::_edit() whenever a non-empty sharing_group_id is supplied without distribution. The model now calls SharingGroup::checkIfAuthorised() before persisting the change. Version affected: ≤2.5.45
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: partial).
- 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
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 7.4 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.