Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.21% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-85546High confidence
MISP Sharing Group Quick-Edit Actions Allow CSRF via State-Changing GET Requests
misp · misp
8.6HighCVSS 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 the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- 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 a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the sharing group quick-edit functionality. The addOrg, removeOrg, addServer, and removeServer actions share the __initialiseSGQuickEdit() helper, where the HTTP method validation intended to restrict these operations to POST requests was commented out. As a result, these state-changing actions could be invoked using GET requests. An attacker could craft a URL targeting one of the affected actions and cause an authenticated MISP user with sufficient privileges to request it, for example through a malicious link or embedded web resource. Successful exploitation could modify the membership of a MISP sharing group without the victim intentionally performing the operation. Depending on the action performed, an attacker could add or remove organisations or servers from a sharing group, potentially granting unintended access to information distributed through that sharing group or disrupting legitimate information sharing. The patch restores HTTP method enforcement centrally in __initialiseSGQuickEdit() by calling allowMethod(['post']), ensuring that all four affected quick-edit operations require POST requests and are therefore subject to the application's normal protections for state-changing requests.
What
MISP contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the sharing group quick-edit functionality. The addOrg, removeOrg, addServer, and removeServer actions share the __initialiseSGQuickEdit() helper, where the HTTP method validation intended to restrict these operations to POST requests was commented out. As a result, these state-changing actions could be invoked using GET requests. An attacker could craft a URL targeting one of the affected actions and cause an authenticated MISP user with sufficient privileges to request it, for example through a malicious link or embedded web resource. Successful exploitation could modify the membership of a MISP sharing group without the victim intentionally performing the operation. Depending on the action performed, an attacker could add or remove organisations or servers from a sharing group, potentially granting unintended access to information distributed through that sharing group or disrupting legitimate information sharing. The patch restores HTTP method enforcement centrally in __initialiseSGQuickEdit() by calling allowMethod(['post']), ensuring that all four affected quick-edit operations require POST requests and are therefore subject to the application's normal protections for state-changing requests.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
MISP contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the sharing group quick-edit functionality. The addOrg, removeOrg, addServer, and removeServer actions share the __initialiseSGQuickEdit() helper, where the HTTP method validation intended to restrict these operations to POST requests was commented out. As a result, these state-changing actions could be invoked using GET requests. An attacker could craft a URL targeting one of the affected actions and cause an authenticated MISP user with sufficient privileges to request it, for example through a malicious link or embedded web resource. Successful exploitation could modify the membership of a MISP sharing group without the victim intentionally performing the operation. Depending on the action performed, an attacker could add or remove organisations or servers from a sharing group, potentially granting unintended access to information distributed through that sharing group or disrupting legitimate information sharing. The patch restores HTTP method enforcement centrally in __initialiseSGQuickEdit() by calling allowMethod(['post']), ensuring that all four affected quick-edit operations require POST requests and are therefore subject to the application's normal protections for state-changing requests.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
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
- a network path → Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- High: elevated access is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-352 ↗
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:L/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRHighPrivileges required: The attacker needs elevated or administrative 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.VALowVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.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: ≤ 2.4.45
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 4 Sept 2026 · Last source change 10 Sept 2026, 07:53 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
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-2026-70981
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- ≤ 2.4.54 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- ≤ 2.4.45 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-70981 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-70981"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.