Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-39423

RCE in Maxkb ≤ 2.8.0

Published
14 April 2026
Modified
20 April 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 6.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/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
EPSS Score 0.0017 7th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-39423 is a medium-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Maxkb Maxkb. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique JavaScript (T1059.007); ranked at the 7th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; in the Other ATLAS/OWASP Terms risk domain.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

MaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. Versions 2.7.1 and below contain an Eval Injection vulnerability in the Markdown rendering engine that allows any user capable of interacting with the AI chat interface to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the…

more

browsers of other users, including administrators, resulting in Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue has been fixed in version 2.8.0.

CWE(s)

AI Security AnalysisAI

AI Category
Enterprise AI Assistants
Risk Domain
Other ATLAS/OWASP Terms
OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
None mapped
AI-specific weaknesses CR
  • CWE-1426 — LLM output rendered in Markdown without sanitization, enabling stored XSS.
Mapped by Cyber Resilience · not in NVD. Poisoning and extraction cases are routed to MITRE ATLAS instead of a synthetic CWE.
Classification Reason
Matched keywords: ai

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059.007 JavaScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution.
T1185 Browser Session Hijacking Collection
Adversaries may take advantage of security vulnerabilities and inherent functionality in browser software to change content, modify user-behaviors, and intercept information as part of various browser session hijacking techniques.
T1539 Steal Web Session Cookie Credential Access
An adversary may steal web application or service session cookies and use them to gain access to web applications or Internet services as an authenticated user without needing credentials.
T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-40809Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-1030Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-7035Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-4709Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-45144Shared CWE-79
CVE-2019-3929Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-25837Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-22438Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-27614Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-47164Shared CWE-79

Affected Assets

maxkb
maxkb
≤ 2.8.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.1.2
  • V1.3.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect input neutralization through targeted web-application tests.

Input validation directly enforces neutralization of untrusted data before it reaches web output generation.

Output filtering can catch or sanitize unneutralized script content before it is served to users.

Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.

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 target introduction of XSS via coding standards/testing (mostly), yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors unaddressed (partial).

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).

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.

finds

Secure-coding testing and automated code-analysis tools are applied to detect improper neutralization of script-related content during web-page generation.

prevents

Knowledge exchange on emerging attack techniques and patches reduces the likelihood that cross-site scripting flaws remain unaddressed in deployed applications.

prevents

Operational indicators of compromise for web-application attacks can be incorporated into WAF or input-filtering rules, lowering the likelihood that unsanitized data reaches the browser.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure-coding standards and automated scanning during the SDLC catches missing output encoding or improper neutralization of untrusted data before the software reaches production.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules against dynamic code execution of untrusted input.

prevents

Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe dynamic evaluation constructs.

References