CVE-2026-107381

MEDIUMPre-NVD 6.56.5
EchelonGraph scoreLOW confidence

This medium-severity CVE scores 6.5 under the CNA's CVSS (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit-prediction score not yet available (the EPSS model rescores nightly; freshly-published CVEs typically appear within 48 hours). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from the CNA's CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS
6.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 6.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

svg-sanitizer: Mixed-case xlink:HrEf skips the ` nesting-DoS check in Resolver::processReferences

Summary

Resolver::processReferences() collects elements with the XPath predicate use[@href or @xlink:href], which is case sensitive. A element written as xlink:HrEf is therefore never added to the reference graph, so the nesting-DoS nullification never marks it for removal. Sanitizer::cleanHrefAttributes() then runs later in the same pass and rewrites xlink:HrEf back to the canonical xlink:href. The sanitizer hands back a fully live nesting bomb that it would have stripped completely had the input used canonical casing.

This is the mirror image of CVE-2025-55166: that fix made href *value* checking case insensitive, but the reference graph still selects nodes case sensitively.

Where it is

src/ElementReference/Resolver.php:97-118, the case-sensitive node selection:

$useNodeName = $this->xPath->createNodeName('use');
foreach ($this->subjects as $subject) {
    $useElements = $this->xPath->query(
        $useNodeName . '[@href or @xlink:href]',
        $subject->getElement()
    );

src/Sanitizer.php:479-504, the normalization that happens afterwards and makes the attribute live again:

// in case the attribute name is HrEf/xlink:HrEf, adjust it to href/xlink:href
if (!in_array($attribute->nodeName, $this->allowedAttrs, true)
    && in_array(strtolower($attribute->nodeName), $this->allowedAttrs, true)
) {
    $element->removeAttribute($attribute->nodeName);
    $element->setAttribute(strtolower($attribute->nodeName), $attribute->value);
}

Ordering is the whole bug. Sanitizer::sanitize() builds the resolver graph first and normalizes attribute casing second, so the graph is built against names the sanitizer is about to change.

Impact

Anyone who can submit an SVG to an application that sanitizes it with this library and then serves it. No privileges beyond being able to upload or paste an SVG. The output is the project's own tests/data/useDosTest.svg nesting structure, intact, with canonical xlink:href attributes, which is exactly the input the useNestingLimit machinery exists to defuse.

Proof of concept

Against a clean clone of tag 0.22.0. The only change to the input is rewriting xlink:href to xlink:HrEf in the project's own DoS fixture.

`php

function run($label, $input) { $s = new \enshrined\svgSanitize\Sanitizer(); $s->removeRemoteReferences(true); $out = $s->sanitize($input); echo "[$label]\n"; echo " output elementReferenceResolver->collect() rather than after, so the resolver only ever sees href and xlink:href. The second option also removes the general class of bug where the graph and the cleaner disagree about a node's identity.

CVSS v3
6.5
EG Score
6.5MEDIUMlow confidence
EG Risk
29
EG Risk 29/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity65% × 45%
The EG Score, 6.5 of 10.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 8, 2026

Last Modified

October 8, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-107381(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Packagist(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
enshrined/svg-sanitize0.1.0 ... 0.9.2 (48 versions)
  • every version up to 1.0.0: fixed in 1.0.0
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 5× in last 7d / 5× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-12 16:38 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-11 20:14 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-11 16:40 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-11 15:00 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-08 19:55 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 6.5 MEDIUM

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-107381?
CVE-2026-107381 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 8, 2026. svg-sanitizer: Mixed-case xlink:HrEf skips the <use> nesting-DoS check in Resolver::processReferences Summary Resolver::processReferences() collects <use> elements with the XPath predicate use[@href or @xlink:href], which is case sensitive. A <use> element written as xlink:HrEf is therefore never…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-107381 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-107381 was published on October 8, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 8, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-107381?
CVE-2026-107381 has a CVSS base score of 6.5 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending). The EG score is currently aggregating — additional source signals are being incorporated as they become available..
How do I remediate CVE-2026-107381?
A fix for CVE-2026-107381 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-107381 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-107381

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-107381?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.