Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-55570

RCE

Published
24 June 2026
Modified
25 June 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 9.0
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0062 48th percentile
Risk Priority 63 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-2026-55570 is a critical-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 48th 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

Vulnerability Data

SiYuan is an open-source personal knowledge management system. Prior to 3.7.0, it does not escape the untrusted fields (name, version, author, description) when they are serialized into the data-obj HTML attribute of each marketplace card. Because the attribute is single-quoted…

more

and the value is produced with JSON.stringify() (which does not escape ', <, or >), a package whose name contains a single quote breaks out of the attribute and injects arbitrary HTML. In the desktop client the main BrowserWindow runs with nodeIntegration: true, contextIsolation: false, so the injected markup escalates from DOM XSS to arbitrary OS command execution. This is the same root cause and same impact as the original advisory, reached through a sibling sink the patch did not cover. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.7.0.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

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.
T1059.002 AppleScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse AppleScript for execution.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-59833Shared CWE-116, CWE-79
CVE-2026-33941Shared CWE-116, CWE-79
CVE-2026-5253Shared CWE-79, CWE-94
CVE-2024-12841Shared CWE-79, CWE-94
CVE-2025-0219Shared CWE-79, CWE-94
CVE-2025-1159Shared CWE-79, CWE-94
CVE-2025-11282Shared CWE-79, CWE-94
CVE-2026-12130Shared CWE-79, CWE-94
CVE-2025-13245Shared CWE-79, CWE-94
CVE-2026-8220Shared CWE-79, CWE-94

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)
  • V1.1.2
  • V1.2.1
  • V1.2.3
  • 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.

Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.

Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.

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).

PR.DS-10 none match
prevents

PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.

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.

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 explicit rules for safe output handling and encoding.

prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of missing encoding but do not prescribe the actual technique.

prevents

Secure-coding standards, SAST scans and removal of insecure code samples together eliminate the failure to neutralize script content that produces cross-site scripting flaws.

References