Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-1089

Fortra Goanywhere Managed File Transfer ≤ 7.10.0

Published
21 April 2026
Modified
23 April 2026
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0023 14th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-1089 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Fortra Goanywhere Managed File Transfer. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 14th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

User‑Controlled HTTP Header in Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT prior to version 7.10.0 allows attackers to trigger a DNS lookup, as well as DNS Rebinding and Information Disclosure.

CWE(s)
CWE-74

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
Why these techniques?

Vulnerability in public-facing GoAnywhere MFT enables direct exploitation via crafted HTTP headers for DNS rebinding and info disclosure.

Confidence: HIGH · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-0972Same product: Fortra Goanywhere Managed File Transfer
CVE-2026-29777Shared CWE-74
CVE-2026-45344Shared CWE-74
CVE-2026-44455Shared CWE-74
CVE-2026-29085Shared CWE-74
CVE-2026-26002Shared CWE-74
CVE-2026-41234Shared CWE-74
CVE-2026-5797Shared CWE-74
CVE-2025-8154Shared CWE-74
CVE-2026-31816Shared CWE-74

Affected Assets

fortra
goanywhere managed file transfer
≤ 7.10.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
  • SC-7 Boundary Protection
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)
  • SC-7 Boundary Protection
Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.1
  • V1.2.3
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match
prevent

Directly requires validation and sanitization of untrusted HTTP header input to block the injection (CWE-74) that triggers attacker-controlled DNS lookups.

AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement partial match
prevent

Enforces information flow policies that can restrict or mediate outbound DNS queries originating from user-supplied header data.

SC-7 Boundary Protection partial match
preventdetect

Boundary protection mechanisms can deny or monitor unauthorized outbound DNS traffic that results from the header-driven rebinding attack.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
detects

Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
detects

Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.

A.8.16 Monitoring activities partial match
detects

Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.

References