CVE-2026-33286
Graphiti ≤ 1.10.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33286 is a critical-severity Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources (CWE-913) vulnerability in Graphiti Graphiti. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Reflective Code Loading (T1620); ranked at the 47th 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-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-33286 is an arbitrary method execution vulnerability in the Graphiti framework, which sits on top of models and exposes them via a JSON:API-compliant interface. Versions prior to 1.10.2 are affected, specifically in Graphiti's JSONAPI write functionality for create, update, and delete operations. The issue stems from the `Graphiti::Util::ValidationResponse#all_valid?` method, which recursively calls `model.send(name)` using relationship names taken directly from user-supplied JSONAPI payloads without validating them against the resource's configured sideloads. This allows invocation of any public method on the underlying model instance, its class, or associated instances or classes. Applications exposing Graphiti write endpoints to untrusted users are vulnerable, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H) and mapped to CWE-913 (Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources).
Any unauthenticated remote attacker (PR:N) who can reach an exposed Graphiti write endpoint can exploit this by crafting a malicious JSONAPI payload with arbitrary relationship names. Successful exploitation enables execution of arbitrary public methods, potentially including destructive operations on model instances, classes, or associations, leading to high integrity (I:H) and availability (A:H) impacts such as data corruption, deletion, or other unintended behaviors depending on the application's models.
The vulnerability is patched in Graphiti v1.10.2; users should upgrade as soon as possible. Advisories recommend workarounds including ensuring Graphiti write endpoints are not accessible to untrusted users, applying strong authentication and authorization checks before processing write operations, and using Rails strong parameters to validate only permitted parameters. Details are available in the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-3m5v-4xp5-gjg2), release notes for v1.10.2, and the patching commit (ddb5ad2b69330774bd1a47935ed89a9fe4396a54).
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-14648
Vulnerability Data
Graphiti is a framework that sits on top of models and exposes them via a JSON:API-compliant interface. Versions prior to 1.10.2 have an arbitrary method execution vulnerability that affects Graphiti's JSONAPI write functionality. An attacker can craft a malicious JSONAPI…
more
payload with arbitrary relationship names to invoke any public method on the underlying model instance, class or its associations. Any application exposing Graphiti write endpoints (create/update/delete) to untrusted users is affected. The `Graphiti::Util::ValidationResponse#all_valid?` method recursively calls `model.send(name)` using relationship names taken directly from user-supplied JSONAPI payloads, without validating them against the resource's configured sideloads. This allows an attacker to potentially run any public method on a given model instance, on the instance class or associated instances or classes, including destructive operations. This is patched in Graphiti v1.10.2. Users should upgrade as soon as possible. Some workarounds are available. Ensure Graphiti write endpoints (create/update) are not accessible to untrusted users and/or apply strong authentication and authorization checks before any write operation is processed, for example use Rails strong parameters to ensure only valid parameters are processed.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement directly stops unauthorized reads/writes to dynamic code resources by applying authorization checks at access time.
Least privilege reduces the set of subjects that can reach or modify dynamic code resources, limiting the weakness's reach.
Isolating security functions from non-security code prevents unintended manipulation of dynamically managed executable resources.
Process isolation keeps each process's dynamic code resources in separate domains, blocking cross-process tampering.
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.
Secure SDLC practices explicitly include controls that prevent improper handling of dynamic code resources.
Blocking unauthorized code execution directly limits the ability to abuse dynamically-managed resources.
Runtime-environment monitoring can detect exploitation of the weakness but does not prevent it.
Vulnerability identification can surface instances of CWE-913 but does not mitigate the root weakness.
Hardened configuration baselines can restrict dynamic code execution and variable access at runtime.
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 dynamic code weaknesses but does not prevent them at design or coding time.
Secure development lifecycle mandates controls on dynamic code generation and resource management.
Application security requirements explicitly address restrictions on dynamic code execution and resource access.
Secure architecture principles require design controls that prevent improper dynamic code resource manipulation.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit unsafe dynamic code resource handling and injection patterns.
Environment separation reduces exposure of dynamic code resources but does not address the underlying weakness.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Windows 10 (1 rule)
- V-220726 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-913
Windows 11 (1 rule)
- V-253283 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-913