CVE-2026-104422
The block sync download path in Zebra (zebrad) before 6.3.0 reads a block's height from its unvalidated coinbase scriptSig and drops blocks
CVSS
7.5
Alto
EPSS
0.2%
p7
KEV
—
Exploit Today
2
0-100
Publicado: 2 oct 2026 · Última mod.: 2 oct 2026 · CWE-345
0.2%EPSS · 30 días0.2%
2026-10-032026-10-05
The block sync download path in Zebra (zebrad) before 6.3.0 reads a block's height from its unvalidated coinbase scriptSig and drops blocks that appear too far behind the tip before consensus validation, without penalizing the supplying peer. Because V5 transaction IDs exclude the scriptSig, a malicious peer can repeatedly serve a canonical block whose coinbase claims height 1 while keeping the requested hash, delaying the node's discovery of the newest block.
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2026-59357——
———Insufficient verification of data authenticity (CWE-345) in the external OIDC login callback in Cloud Foundry UAA v4.5.0 to v79.6.0 (inclusive) allows an authenticated UAA user to bypass the OAuth authorization-code exchange and establish an authenticated external-OIDC browser session, via submitting a UAA access token or a cross-client ID token as the callback’s id_token parameter.
The issue only manifests when a UAA zone is configured with an OIDC identity provider whose issuer exactly matches that zone’s own /oauth/token endpoint (a “self-UAA” OIDC configuration). In this configuration, the callback takes a supplied id_token directly instead of requiring the authorization code exchange, and does not verify that the token was actually issued as an ID token for the specific self-OIDC relying-party client. An attacker holding any valid UAA JWT for themselves — including a plain access token with only uaa.user scope, or a valid ID token issued to an unrelated client such as cf — can present it as the callback’s id_token and be authenticated into a mapped local (“shadow”) account. Because the resulting session is not verified against the originating token’s true audience or user_id, its effective privilege depends entirely on the shadow account’s group memberships, which can include administrative scopes such as clients.write.
Exploitation requires a valid UAA user JWT, a valid browser login state for the target zone, and the presence of a self-referential OIDC provider configuration — this is not a pre-authentication vulnerability, and does not by itself grant privileges beyond those already held by the mapped shadow account.7hCVE-2026-1057417.1 ALT—
——0Langflow is a tool for building and deploying AI-powered agents and workflows. From 1.5.0 until 1.10.3, an IP spoofing vulnerability in the Model Context Protocol (MCP) configuration installation endpoint (POST /api/v1/mcp/project/{project_id}/install) allowed authenticated remote attackers to bypass the "local-only" access restriction. By sending a spoofed X-Forwarded-For: 127.0.0.1 header, an attacker could make the server treat the request as originating from localhost, letting them write/overwrite an MCP client configuration file on the server's filesystem. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.10.3.22hCVE-2026-104805—10.9%
——3DigitalCanion has discovered a vulnerability in the backup restoration functionality that allows an attacker with access to the configured backup repository to introduce arbitrary files into the system during restoration.
The specific flaw exists within the backup restoration mechanism, which fails to properly validate the paths, file types, integrity, and authenticity of files contained within a restored TGZ archive. The application does not perform file-signature verification before extracting the archive, allowing a specially crafted backup to contain attacker-controlled files.
An attacker with access to the backup SFTP or other configured repository can therefore provide a malicious TGZ archive that, when restored by the system, may place arbitrary files on the underlying Linux system. Depending on the location and permissions of the extracted files, this behavior can potentially be leveraged to achieve arbitrary code execution with root privileges and compromise the underlying virtual machine.
The absence of enforced backup passwords further reduces the protection provided by the backup mechanism and may facilitate unauthorized access to the repository.1dCVE-2026-1051615.3 MED3.1%
——1A flaw has been found in invariant-systems-ai aiir up to 1.7.0. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Policy Gate Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack can be executed remotely. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The GitHub repository of this project is not available anymore. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.2dCVE-2026-85515—4.2%
——1In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when streaming but requires it to indicate a clear error as soon as the truncation is detected, and to report suspect integrity when it discovers malleable ciphertext. The truncation was detected and then discarded: when a message is truncated but the length field of the enclosing packet is left unchanged, BCPGInputStream.PartialInputStream raises an EOFException for the missing ciphertext, and BCPGInputStream.nextPacketTag() reports an EOFException as a clean end of message, so the packet stream above it stopped as though no packets remained. On the AEAD path (SEIPD version 2 and the version 5 AEAD packet), when the literal data packet ended on an AEAD chunk boundary and the consumer read in increments smaller than one chunk, the look-ahead for the packet after the literal triggered the truncated chunk read, so BcAEADUtil and JceAEADUtil never reached the trailing message tag of sec. 5.13.2 that authenticates the total plaintext length; the caller received the plaintext of the fully authenticated chunks, every packet following the literal was silently dropped, and no exception was raised, so a signed and encrypted message read back as a well-formed unsigned one. Every byte released on that path remained individually authenticated, making this a missing truncation error rather than a forgery, and it is a residual of CVE-2026-12817, which closed the same outcome for an attacker who corrects the outer packet length. On the SEIPD version 1 path the consequence was more serious: IntegrityProtectedInputStream verifies the modification detection code from close(), and reached close() only by closing itself when a read of it returned -1, which a truncated message never produces, so PGPEncryptedData.verify() never ran and the recipient was handed CFB-decrypted plaintext on which no integrity check of any kind had been performed. Measured on a message truncated into that shape, 136 distinct single-byte modifications of the ciphertext produced accepted, altered plaintext with no exception raised. Reachability is a property of the message rather than of attacker-supplied input: the AEAD shape held for 3 of 131 consecutive payload lengths measured, and the SEIPD version 1 shape for one payload length in sixteen, at a truncation offset that did not move with the payload length. The low-level API is unaffected, a caller that invokes PGPEncryptedData.verify() directly getting the check regardless, as are consumers reading in increments of a whole AEAD chunk or more. The AEAD decryption streams now re-throw such an EOFException as a plain IOException, which nextPacketTag() does not launder; OpenPGPMessageInputStream.close() now closes its layer's integrity-protected stream itself rather than relying on that stream having seen the end of its data; and IntegrityProtectedInputStream.close() was made idempotent, as java.io.Closeable requires, which that depends on, since the stream is genuinely closed twice on the ordinary path and PGPEncryptedData.verify() consumes the digest state behind it and cannot be run a second time. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, on the AEAD route only, as that edition does not ship the high-level OpenPGP API the SEIPDv1 route runs through. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.14 (1.0.X series), 2.0.14.1 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.14 (2.1.X series), on the AEAD route only, as those editions do not ship the high-level OpenPGP API.1dCVE-2026-71887—0.4%
——0In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.1d