CVE-2026-53723
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-53723 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 13th 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 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-36242
Vulnerability Data
Guzzle Services provides an implementation of the Guzzle Command library that uses Guzzle service descriptions to describe web services, serialize requests, and parse responses into easy to use model structures. Versions prior ro 1.5.4 do not safely serialize scalar XML…
more
element values containing the CDATA terminator `]]>`. The XML request serializer writes values containing `<`, `>`, or `&` with `XMLWriter::writeCData($value)`. If attacker-controlled input contains `]]>`, the CDATA section closes early and the remainder is interpreted as XML markup. This is an outgoing request-body integrity issue, not a response parsing issue. The attacker does not need to control the service description or schema. Users are affected when all of the following are true: the application uses `guzzlehttp/guzzle-services` to serialize outgoing requests; a request parameter or `additionalParameters` schema uses `location: xml`; the value is serialized as XML element text, not an XML attribute; the value can contain attacker-controlled, user-controlled, tenant-controlled, or otherwise untrusted input; the value is not constrained by a safe `enum`, `pattern`, or custom filter that excludes `]]>`; and the downstream service parses the generated XML structurally and may act on unexpected, duplicated, or injected elements. Applications that serialize untrusted input into `location: xml` request parameters can emit XML containing attacker-controlled elements outside the intended text node. Depending on the receiving service, this can alter operation semantics, smuggle privileged fields, bypass modeled parameter boundaries, or create conflicting duplicated elements. Fixed service descriptions are sufficient if they contain an XML element parameter populated from attacker-controlled input. Users are not directly affected if they only use Guzzle Services to deserialize HTTP response bodies. Response XML parsing uses the response XML location visitor and does not invoke the vulnerable request XML serializer. Response bodies matter only in a second-order flow, such as parsing attacker-controlled response XML, storing or forwarding a parsed string value, and later using it as a `location: xml` request parameter. The issue is patched in `1.5.3` and later by safely splitting embedded CDATA terminators before serialization. The fix preserves the original scalar value as XML text and prevents injected nodes. As a workaround, constrain attacker-controlled XML element values with a strict `enum`, `pattern`, or custom filter that excludes `]]>`, or avoid serializing untrusted data into `location: xml` element text until patched. Where appropriate for the service schema, XML attributes are not affected because they are written with XMLWriter attribute APIs rather than CDATA sections. To determine whether action is needed, search service descriptions for request parameters using `location: xml`, including operation `parameters` and `additionalParameters`. Response-only `models` are not directly affected unless parsed values are reused for request serialization. For object and array parameters, review nested scalar properties because leaf element values can still be affected.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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 directly require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Logging can record injection attempts for detection but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring can detect exploitation but provides no preventive control over XML handling.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
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).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20