CVE-2026-33533
Nicolargo Glances ≤ 4.5.3
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-33533 is a high-severity Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy with Untrusted Domains (CWE-942) vulnerability in Nicolargo Glances. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Drive-by Compromise (T1189); ranked at the 26th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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-2026-18252
Vulnerability Data
Glances is an open-source system cross-platform monitoring tool. Prior to version 4.5.3, the Glances XML-RPC server (activated with glances -s or glances --server) sends Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * on every HTTP response. Because the XML-RPC handler does not validate the Content-Type header,…
more
an attacker-controlled webpage can issue a CORS "simple request" (POST with Content-Type: text/plain) containing a valid XML-RPC payload. The browser sends the request without a preflight check, the server processes the XML body and returns the full system monitoring dataset, and the wildcard CORS header lets the attacker's JavaScript read the response. The result is complete exfiltration of hostname, OS version, IP addresses, CPU/memory/disk/network stats, and the full process list including command lines (which often contain tokens, passwords, or internal paths). This issue has been patched in version 4.5.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.4.3V3.4.6V3.5.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement requires approved authorizations and would reject policies permitting untrusted domains.
Boundary protection at external interfaces stops unauthorized cross-domain communication allowed by permissive policies.
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.
Hardened configuration baselines and reviews directly prevent permissive CSP or cross-domain policies.
Secure SDLC activities include review and testing of web security policies to avoid untrusted domains.
Vulnerability identification processes can surface permissive policy misconfigurations.
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 overly permissive cross-domain policies but does not prevent their initial introduction.
Network security policies can restrict cross-domain communication but do not specifically mandate strict CSP or cross-domain policy configuration.
Security of network services includes defining allowed endpoints, which can limit untrusted domains but does not directly address web-client policy files.
Web filtering can block untrusted domains at the network level, partially mitigating permissive cross-domain policies.
Application security requirements should specify secure CSP and cross-domain policy settings, directly addressing the weakness.
Secure architecture principles include defining trust boundaries, which can reduce permissive cross-domain allowances.