CVE-2026-2862
Ibm Security Verify Access 10.0.0.0 – 10.0.9.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-2862 is a medium-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Ibm Security Verify Access. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 30th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-18033
Vulnerability Data
IBM Verify Identity Access Container 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access Container 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 and IBM Verify Identity Access 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 IBM Security Verify could allow a remote…
more
attacker to access sensitive information due to an inconsistent interpretation of an HTTP request by a reverse proxy.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
HTTP request smuggling (CWE-444) in a public-facing reverse proxy directly enables remote exploitation of the application for sensitive data access.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires boundary protection devices such as reverse proxies to enforce consistent HTTP request interpretation and block smuggling vectors that expose sensitive information.
Enforces information flow policies that require uniform parsing and handling of HTTP requests across proxies and back-end servers to prevent inconsistent interpretation attacks.
Mandates validation of HTTP request syntax and headers at system boundaries, reducing the risk of smuggling that leads to unauthorized data access.
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.
Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.
Network monitoring can detect smuggling attempts via anomalous HTTP traffic or logs, while eliminating the inconsistency directly aids detection of such events.
Network protections can enforce consistent HTTP proxy/firewall behavior to block smuggling, and removing the weakness helps prevent unauthorized access via request smuggling.
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.
Security testing can detect HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities in intermediary components.
Network security controls can enforce consistent HTTP parsing and proxy behavior that mitigates request smuggling.
Secure network services include hardening proxies and gateways against inconsistent HTTP interpretation.
Secure SDLC practices require threat modeling and testing for HTTP parsing inconsistencies in intermediaries.
Application security requirements can mandate strict HTTP message validation and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles include consistent protocol handling and defense-in-depth for proxies.