Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.27% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-85221High confidence
MISP CurlClient TLS Peer Verification Disabled by Default Enables Man-in-the-Middle Attacks
misp · misp
7.6HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs misp misp and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
MISP contains an improper TLS certificate validation vulnerability in CurlClient. The CurlClient::$verifyPeer property was not explicitly initialized and therefore defaulted to null. When passed to cURL, this value effectively disabled TLS peer verification unless the calling code explicitly enabled it. As a result, HTTPS connections made through affected CurlClient instances could accept certificates that were not issued by a trusted certificate authority. An attacker capable of intercepting or manipulating network traffic between a MISP instance and a remote HTTPS service could impersonate the remote endpoint and perform a man-in-the-middle attack. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to observe sensitive information transmitted by MISP, including authentication material or exchanged threat intelligence, and to modify responses returned to the MISP instance. The impact depends on the functionality using CurlClient and the data exchanged with the remote service. The patch enables TLS peer verification by default while preserving explicit support for configured self-signed certificates. It also corrects the self-signed certificate handling in SyncTool so that peer verification is disabled only when no pinned CA certificate is configured.
What
MISP contains an improper TLS certificate validation vulnerability in CurlClient. The CurlClient::$verifyPeer property was not explicitly initialized and therefore defaulted to null. When passed to cURL, this value effectively disabled TLS peer verification unless the calling code explicitly enabled it. As a result, HTTPS connections made through affected CurlClient instances could accept certificates that were not issued by a trusted certificate authority. An attacker capable of intercepting or manipulating network traffic between a MISP instance and a remote HTTPS service could impersonate the remote endpoint and perform a man-in-the-middle attack. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to observe sensitive information transmitted by MISP, including authentication material or exchanged threat intelligence, and to modify responses returned to the MISP instance. The impact depends on the functionality using CurlClient and the data exchanged with the remote service. The patch enables TLS peer verification by default while preserving explicit support for configured self-signed certificates. It also corrects the self-signed certificate handling in SyncTool so that peer verification is disabled only when no pinned CA certificate is configured.
Why
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
What
MISP contains an improper TLS certificate validation vulnerability in CurlClient. The CurlClient::$verifyPeer property was not explicitly initialized and therefore defaulted to null. When passed to cURL, this value effectively disabled TLS peer verification unless the calling code explicitly enabled it. As a result, HTTPS connections made through affected CurlClient instances could accept certificates that were not issued by a trusted certificate authority. An attacker capable of intercepting or manipulating network traffic between a MISP instance and a remote HTTPS service could impersonate the remote endpoint and perform a man-in-the-middle attack. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to observe sensitive information transmitted by MISP, including authentication material or exchanged threat intelligence, and to modify responses returned to the MISP instance. The impact depends on the functionality using CurlClient and the data exchanged with the remote service. The patch enables TLS peer verification by default while preserving explicit support for configured self-signed certificates. It also corrects the self-signed certificate handling in SyncTool so that peer verification is disabled only when no pinned CA certificate is configured.
Why
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- an adjacent network → Improper Certificate Validation → obtain information outside the intended access boundary
- Attack surface
- Adjacent
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-295 ↗
CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation. The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVAdjacentAttack vector: The attacker must be on an adjacent or logically close network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- misp: ≤ 2.5.45
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 3 Sept 2026 · Last source change 3 Sept 2026, 14:22 UTC · CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-04
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-70494
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-70494 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-70494"}
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added patch: github.com/e06f69858; added remediation: github.com/e06f69858.github.com ↗
- Before
- no authoritative guidance recorded
- After
- patch: github.com/e06f69858 · remediation: github.com/e06f69858
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- ≤ 2.5.45 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- ≤ 2.5.45 · Fixed: An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.github.com ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Patch available
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.