Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.13% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceKiteworks · Core
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-RPXX-JM93-W5J7 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch availableIn multi-node deployments, an attacker who had already obtained code execution on one appliance node could submit a value through an internal cluster interface that was written into monitoring configuration on another node without sufficient validation, potentially allowing OS commands to be executed there. Execution was limited to an unprivileged service account on that node.
In multi-node deployments, an attacker who had already obtained code execution on one appliance node could submit a value through an internal cluster interface that was written into monitoring configuration on another node without sufficient validation, potentially allowing OS commands to be executed there. Execution was limited to an unprivileged service account on that node.
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
In multi-node deployments, an attacker who had already obtained code execution on one appliance node could submit a value through an internal cluster interface that was written into monitoring configuration on another node without sufficient validation, potentially allowing OS commands to be executed there. Execution was limited to an unprivileged service account on that node.
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection'). The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 30 Sept 2026 · Last source change 1 Oct 2026, 13:37 UTC · CWE-93 · Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.