Multiple MISP core controllers and model capture paths accepted client-controlled request fields such as primary keys (id) and ownership/scope foreign keys (event_id, org_id, user_id, sharing_group_id, galaxy_cluster_uuid, organisation_uuid, and related nested object identifiers) without consistently stripping, pinning, or revalidating them against the server-authorized object.
In affected paths, an authenticated user with access to one authorized object could submit crafted REST or form payloads that caused MISP to save data against a different object than the one checked by the authorization logic. Depending on the endpoint, this could allow object overwrite, object re-parenting, ownership transfer, unauthorized sharing-group scoping, event/object injection, proposal retargeting, or stored attacker-controlled content appearing in another user’s context.
The fixes harden affected create/edit/import flows by stripping client-supplied primary keys on create-only saves, re-pinning route- or database-authorized identifiers before save operations, validating effective sharing-group scope, and adding field whitelists where ownership fields must never be editable. The initial broad fix also added a central CRUDComponent::edit() primary-key re-pin so payload-supplied IDs cannot redirect saves away from the already-authorized row. GitHub’s patch for 7acf8220c describes this central issue as CRUDComponent::edit() copying supplied fields, including a payload primary key, onto the loaded record, allowing CakePHP save() to update an arbitrary row unless the loaded ID is re-pinned.
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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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