Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-56423 is a critical-severity Missing Authorization (CWE-862) vulnerability in Misp-Project Misp. Its CVSS base score is 9.4 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 25th 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 AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38226
Vulnerability Data
MISP Core contained broken access-control checks in the bulk deletion flows for Event Reports and Sharing Groups. The affected deleteSelection handlers authorized deletion using broad role-level permissions instead of validating authorization for each selected object. For Event Reports, EventReportsController::deleteSelection relied…
more
on the global perm_add capability rather than a per-report ownership/authorization check. As a result, a contributor-level user could submit report IDs or UUIDs for reports belonging to other organisations and hard-delete them instance-wide. The fix changed the callback to call EventReport::fetchIfAuthorized($user, $itemId, 'delete') for each selected report before deletion. For Sharing Groups, SharingGroupsController::deleteSelection relied on the global perm_sharing_group capability rather than verifying ownership of each selected sharing group. This allowed a sharing-group-capable user to hard-delete sharing groups owned by other organisations, bypassing the per-object ownership gate used by the single-object delete action. The fix changed the callback to call SharingGroup::checkIfOwner($user, $itemId) for each selected sharing group. An authenticated attacker with the relevant broad role permission could abuse the affected bulk deletion endpoints to delete objects outside their organisation’s authorization scope, causing loss of event-report content or sharing-group configuration across the instance.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 5 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally eliminating missing authorization checks.
AC-24 mandates that access control decisions are applied to each request, preventing bypass of authorization logic.
AC-25 requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that ensures authorization checks cannot be omitted.
AC-6 reduces the set of actions reachable without proper authorization, limiting blast radius of missing checks.
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.
Explicitly requires defining, enforcing, and reviewing authorizations and least privilege, directly preventing missing authorization checks.
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.
Requiring authentication and credentials before any access occurs eliminates the absence of authorization checks that would otherwise allow an unauthenticated actor to reach protected resources.
Requiring formal authorization of every access request before rights are granted ensures that checks for required permissions are performed, preventing missing authorization checks from being introduced.
Mandatory authorization checks and central records of granted rights ensure that every access attempt is preceded by an explicit decision rather than relying on missing checks.
Segregating the approval of access rights from their implementation provides an independent check that reduces the impact of missing authorization checks in the resulting system configuration.
By requiring competent outsiders to verify that every function enforces the need-to-know principle, the control lowers the likelihood that missing authorization checks persist undetected.
Defining authorization responsibilities and reviewing risk-treatment progress throughout the project lifecycle catches missing authorization checks before the system is deployed.
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).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248581 OL 8 must require users to provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
- V-252656 The OL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-251704 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
- V-204429 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862