CVE-2026-48118

HIGHPre-NVD 8.28.2
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 8.2 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-07-13. The CNA's CVSS baseline 8.2; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-mxpf-qgg6-v3ff (GitHub Security Advisories)

8.2EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 8.2Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

NukeViet: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS in Comment Module

Summary

Reflected XSS in the Comment module via the status_comment URL parameter. The parameter accepts attacker-controlled base64-encoded HTML/JavaScript that is decoded server-side and rendered unescaped into the page. Compounded by a second flaw: the checkss anti-forgery token was derived from a site-wide static value (NV_CACHE_PREFIX) instead of a per-session value, making the token reusable across all users and allowing the attack to be delivered via a simple crafted URL.

Details

Vulnerability 1 — Reflected XSS via status_comment

Affected components:

  • modules/comment/funcs/main.php — parameter ingestion
  • modules/comment/comment.php — decode and template assignment
  • themes/*/modules/comment/comment.tpl — raw render

The status_comment GET/POST parameter is sanitised with get_title(), which applies strip_tags(). Because the parameter is intended to carry a base64-encoded string, its character set ([A-Za-z0-9-_,]) passes through strip_tags() unchanged. The value is later decoded with nv_base64_decode() and assigned to the template variable STATUS_COMMENT without any escaping, which the template then renders raw inside a `.

The fundamental flaw is ordering: the filter is applied to the encoded form of the data, before decoding, so it is entirely ineffective against whatever the decoded content contains. Any HTML or JavaScript payload, once base64-encoded, survives the filter and executes in the victim's browser.

Vulnerability 2 — Session-independent checkss token

Affected components:

  • modules/comment/comment.php — token validation in comment-load and comment-module functions
  • modules/comment/funcs/post.php — token validation when posting
  • All caller modules that generate a checkss before invoking the comment system (e.g. modules/news, modules/page)

The checkss token required to load the comment block was computed by hashing the resource parameters together with NV_CACHE_PREFIX:

checkss = md5(module + area + id + allowed + NV_CACHE_PREFIX)

NV_CACHE_PREFIX is a static, site-wide constant — identical for every visitor — derived at install time from the site key and server name. The token therefore has the same value for all users viewing the same article and never changes between sessions.

This token is printed into the public HTML of every page that includes a comment block (as a data-checkss attribute on the comment container). Because the token is not session-bound, an attacker can read it from the page source and reuse it in a crafted URL targeting any other user.

The correct pattern, used consistently elsewhere in the codebase (e.g. modules/contact, modules/banners), is to derive the token from NV_CHECK_SESSION:

NV_CHECK_SESSION = md5(NV_CACHE_PREFIX + session_id)

This binds the token to the current session, so a token obtained by the attacker is invalid for any other user's session.

Attack scenario

  • Attacker opens any article with a comment block and reads the checkss value from the HTML source.
  • Attacker constructs a payload (e.g. a credential-phishing overlay) and base64-encodes it.
  • Attacker delivers the following URL to the victim:
https:///index.php?language=vi&nv=comment&comment_load=1
     &module=news&area=&id=&allowed=
     &checkss=
     &status_comment=
  • When the victim opens the URL, the decoded payload renders in their browser within the site's origin, with access to cookies, session storage, and the ability to make authenticated requests.

Verified impact: A phishing overlay form was confirmed to transmit captured plaintext credentials to an attacker-controlled server. No authentication is required at any step.

CSP note: NukeViet's Content-Security-Policy includes script-src 'unsafe-inline' and does not restrict navigation, so the policy does not prevent exploitation.

CVSS 3.1

Vector: AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N Base Score: 8.2 (High)

| Metric | Value | Rationale | |--------|-------|-----------| | Attack Vector | Network | Exploitable remotely via crafted URL | | Attack Complexity | Low | checkss readable from public HTML; no special setup required | | Privileges Required | None | No authentication needed | | User Interaction | Required | Victim must open the crafted URL | | Scope | Changed | JavaScript executes in victim's browser, crossing the application security boundary | | Confidentiality | High | Full plaintext credential capture demonstrated via phishing overlay | | Integrity | Low | DOM manipulation and authenticated requests possible; no direct backend write access | | Availability | None | No denial-of-service impact |

Patches

Both root causes are addressed:

Fix 1 — Bind checkss to user session: Replace NV_CACHE_PREFIX with NV_CHECK_SESSION in all locations that generate or validate the comment checkss token — both inside the comment module itself and in any caller module that constructs the token before invoking the comment system. With a session-bound token, a value obtained by the attacker is invalid for any other user's session, removing the delivery mechanism for this attack.

Fix 2 — Escape decoded output before rendering: Apply nv_htmlspecialchars() to the result of nv_base64_decode($status_comment)` before assigning it to the template. This closes the XSS sink as an independent defence-in-depth measure, remaining effective regardless of how the code path is reached.

Fix 1 alone eliminates the exploitability of this specific vector. Fix 2 is a necessary defence-in-depth layer that closes the underlying sink.

CWE

  • CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (Cross-site Scripting)
  • CWE-565: Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking (contributing factor — session-independent token)

CVSS v3
8.2
EG Score
8.2HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
37
EG Risk 37/100

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)
Severity82% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.2 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
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

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

The EG score (8.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.2 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

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.

The score's inputs: 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

July 13, 2026

Last Modified

July 13, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-48118(1)

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

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
composernukeviet/nukeviet @ 4.6.00 (fixes < 4.5.09)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Packagist(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
nukeviet/nukeviet4.0.24, 4.4.01
  • every version up to 4.6.00: fixed in 4.6.00
—

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 2× 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. 2026-11-01 07:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-mxpf-qgg6-v3ff · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.2
  2. 2026-11-01 07:47 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-25 14:23 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-18 03:35 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-12 16:01 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 19:44 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 16:58 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 14:23 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-01 14:12 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-07-30 21:44 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-07-26 11:52 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-07-23 03:18 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-07-13 18:07 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-48118?
CVE-2026-48118 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 13, 2026. NukeViet: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS in Comment Module Summary Reflected XSS in the Comment module via the status_comment URL parameter. The parameter accepts attacker-controlled base64-encoded HTML/JavaScript that is decoded server-side and rendered unescaped into the page. Compounded by a…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-48118 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-48118 was published on July 13, 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 July 13, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-48118?
CVE-2026-48118 has a CVSS base score of 8.2 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-48118?
A fix for CVE-2026-48118 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-48118 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-2026-48118

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-48118?

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