CVE-2026-116372

HIGHPre-NVD 7.77.7
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This high-severity CVE scores 7.7 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.4% (29th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 5 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-109666 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-85gw-r975-r63j (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.7EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 7.7Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

An upstream fix is merged but not yet released — mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation) until the release ships, then apply it.

MISP mispguard is a security filtering proxy that inspects and blocks MISP feed responses based on configured rules. The process_feed_response method in src/mispguard.py was responsible for evaluating feed responses before they reached the MISP instance. The original logic only explicitly handled the case where the HTTP status code was not 200 by passing the response through without filtering, on the assumption that non-200 responses would not carry ingestible event data. However, HTTP 2xx status codes other than 200 (such as 201 Created, 203 Non-Authoritative Information, and 206 Partial Content) were also passed through unfiltered. Because MISP may still ingest content from these responses, a malicious or compromised feed host could return a 203 or 206 status code with arbitrary content, effectively bypassing all of mispguard's filtering rules. This allowed unfiltered or malicious feed data to be ingested into the MISP instance, undermining the security controls that mispguard is designed to enforce. The vulnerability requires the attacker to control or compromise a feed endpoint configured in the MISP instance. No authentication or user interaction is required beyond the feed polling mechanism already in place.

CVSS v3
7.7
EG Score
7.7HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
35
EG Risk 35/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity77% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.7 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.4% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability 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 every mission impact level.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). 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: An upstream fix is merged but not yet in a tagged release. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines until it ships, then apply the release.
EPSS PROB
0.4%
EPSS %ILE
29th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.7 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.

An upstream fix is merged but not yet in a tagged release. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines until it ships, then apply the release.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). 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)60 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 partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). 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 26, 2026

Last Modified

October 26, 2026

Advisory Details (1)

Auto-updated Oct 26, 2026
Upstream fix merged — awaiting tagged release. Sources: github_commit.
GitHub commit

commit b5f606a4e57a (MISP/misp-guard)

Fix landed in MISP/misp-guard commit b5f606a4e57a — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/MISP/misp-guard/commit/b5f606a4e57a49cc4dbf9b3ef0c6ddd19f866735

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-116372(1)

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

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 8× 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. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  2. 2026-10-26 17:32 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-26 17:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-85gw-r975-r63j · GitHub severity HIGH
  4. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  5. 2026-10-26 10:01 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-109666 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  6. 2026-10-26 09:26 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-26 09:00 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.7 HIGH
  8. 2026-10-26 09:00 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-116372?
CVE-2026-116372 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 26, 2026. MISP mispguard is a security filtering proxy that inspects and blocks MISP feed responses based on configured rules. The processfeedresponse method in src/mispguard.py was responsible for evaluating feed responses before they reached the MISP instance. The original logic only explicitly handled the…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-116372 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-116372 was published on October 26, 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 26, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-116372 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-116372 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (29th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-116372?
CVE-2026-116372 has a CVSS base score of 7.7 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-116372?
An upstream fix for CVE-2026-116372 has been merged but is not yet in a tagged release. Until it ships, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation, then update to the release that contains the fix. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-116372 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-116372

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-116372?

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

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs