Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 1.91% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | swift | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.8.0-6 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | swift | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.8.0-6 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | swift | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.8.0-6 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | swift | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.8.0-6 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| pipswift | < 1.9.0 | 1.9.0 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 14 May 2024 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedXML injection vulnerability in account/utils.py in OpenStack Swift Folsom, Grizzly, and Havana allows attackers to trigger invalid or spoofed Swift responses via an account name.
XML injection vulnerability in account/utils.py in OpenStack Swift Folsom, Grizzly, and Havana allows attackers to trigger invalid or spoofed Swift responses via an account name.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
XML injection vulnerability in account/utils.py in OpenStack Swift Folsom, Grizzly, and Havana allows attackers to trigger invalid or spoofed Swift responses via an account name.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'). The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:POperational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 20 Aug 2013 · Last source change 6 Aug 2024, 15:27 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.