CVE-2026-94383
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-94383 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Invalid Code Signature (T1036.001); ranked at the 41th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and CM-7 (Least Functionality) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-83908
Vulnerability Data
The MISP blocklist workflow module accepted a user-supplied blocklist filename parameter without validating the file extension. The only sanitization applied was basename() to strip path components and a check for empty or dot values. A site administrator could specify a…
more
filename with an arbitrary extension that would be placed in the MISP export directory. If the underlying web server is configured to interpret and execute scripts from that directory, the resulting file could be invoked, leading to arbitrary code execution in the context of the web server process. The vulnerability requires the attacker to hold site-administrator privileges within MISP, as the blocklist workflow module is restricted to that role. No additional user interaction is required beyond triggering the workflow action with a crafted filename parameter. The impact is full compromise of the MISP server's confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as arbitrary script execution grants the attacker the same privileges as the web server user. Version affected: <2.5.47
- 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
V5.1.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Owner ruled HOLDS/full (ruling 4), REVISED same day to mostly on independent second assessment (rulings 6-7): CWE-20's class includes semantic and context-dependent validation failures that boundary validation cannot see, so full overstates the ceiling; prefer-lower. Full ruling history kept. Instrument divergence: replicate 1/2 early-stopped, the one holder graded mostly.
Least functionality restricts the file types and automatic processing capabilities the system will accept.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
Mobile-code controls define, authorize, and block unacceptable uploaded code before automatic processing occurs.
Malicious-code protection at entry points blocks dangerous file types from being accepted and executed.
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.
Hardened configuration baselines can enforce allowed file types and processing rules.
Restricting execution of unauthorized software directly blocks dangerous uploaded files from running.
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.
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.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
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.
Mandated testing for malicious content and known vulnerabilities reduces the likelihood that an outsourced component will contain or accept dangerous file types that could later be uploaded or executed.
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` (higher-evidence 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