Security Resilience

CVE-2026-53582

Published
15 October 2026
Modified
15 October 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 7.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0073 53th percentile
Risk Priority 51 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-53582 is a high-severity aka Blind XPath Injection (CWE-91) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Steganography (T1001.002); ranked in the top 47% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

OPNsense is a FreeBSD based firewall and routing platform. Prior to version 26.1.10, the Trust module stores attacker-controlled certificate authority and certificate refid values and interpolates them into XPath expressions in src/opnsense/mvc/app/models/OPNsense/Trust/FieldTypes/CAsField.php and src/opnsense/mvc/app/models/OPNsense/Trust/FieldTypes/CertificatesField.php. A user with CA Manager or…

more

Certificate Manager privileges can submit a crafted refid and repeatedly retrieve the object to obtain a boolean refcount oracle, allowing values in config.xml to be recovered character by character. Exposed values can include password hashes, API credentials, certificate private keys, VPN key material, and high-availability credentials, enabling privilege escalation and compromise of other security domains. This issue is fixed in version 26.1.10.

CWE(s)
CWE-91CWE-643

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1001.002 Steganography Command And Control
Adversaries may use steganographic techniques to hide command and control traffic to make detection efforts more difficult.
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.002 Security Account Manager Credential Access
Adversaries may attempt to extract credential material from the Security Account Manager (SAM) database either through in-memory techniques or through the Windows Registry where the SAM database is stored.
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.003 NTDS Credential Access
Adversaries may attempt to access or create a copy of the Active Directory domain database in order to steal credential information, as well as obtain other information about domain members such as devices, users, and access rights.
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.004 LSA Secrets Credential Access
Adversaries with SYSTEM access to a host may attempt to access Local Security Authority (LSA) secrets, which can contain a variety of different credential materials, such as credentials for service accounts.
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.005 Cached Domain Credentials Credential Access
Adversaries may attempt to access cached domain credentials used to allow authentication to occur in the event a domain controller is unavailable.
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.007 Proc Filesystem Credential Access
Adversaries may gather credentials from the proc filesystem or `/proc`.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

Affected Assets

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)
  • V1.2.4
  • V1.2.7
  • V2.2.1
  • V4.3.1

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 partial match
blocks

Secure SDLC directly requires input neutralization and validation that eliminates XML 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.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging can record injection attempts for detection but does not prevent the weakness.

A.8.16 Monitoring activities partial match
finds

Monitoring can detect exploitation but provides no preventive control over XML handling.

A.8.19 Installation of software on operational systems partial match
removes
A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
blocks

A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices (secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing including code scans) that reach XML injection when developers follow them, but leaves a minority slice where implementation is incomplete or the outsourced supplier assurance fails.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
blocks

A.8.26 requires identifying and specifying security requirements (including resilience against SQL injections and input validation) determined via risk assessment; this can address XML injection for some applications but leaves a bounded remainder where requirements are scoped narrowly, not fully enforced in code, or miss XML-specific neutralization.

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

A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles, secure architecture patterns (defense-in-depth, least privilege, distrust external input, fail securely), design reviews against known attack patterns, and data validation/sanitization guidance that reach a slice of XML injection cases, but leaves the dominant code-level neutralization defect untouched without further implementation-specific controls.

References