CVE-2026-11815
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn attacker who intercepts and tampers with traffic between the client application and the API Gateway server could potentially deserialize arbitrary objects. This vulnerability could lead to broken security expectations or remote code execution.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThis is an insecure deserialization vulnerability in an API Gateway where an attacker performing a man-in-the-middle attack can intercept and tamper with traffic between the client and the API Gateway, potentially deserializing arbitrary objects. This could allow broken security expectations or remote code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:H/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify mTLS is enabled between clients and API GatewayCheck the API Gateway configuration for mutual TLS settings. Look for client certificate validation, CA certificate configuration, and 'mutual' or 'mTLS' in TLS settings.Affected if mTLS is not enabled and only one-way TLS or no encryption is configured between clients and the gateway
-
Confirm deserialization allowlists are implementedInspect the API Gateway's deserialization configuration. Look for allowlists, whitelist controls, or class filtering settings for incoming serialized data.Affected if no deserialization allowlist is defined and any serialized object can be deserialized by the gateway
-
Check if traffic interception is possibleVerify network configuration to determine if an attacker could perform MITM. Confirm certificate pinning is not used and that proper certificate validation is enforced on client connections.Affected if client connections do not validate server certificates or do not require client certificates
-
Review deserialization input validationExamine how the API Gateway handles incoming serialized data. Check if there is validation, schema enforcement, or type checking before deserialization occurs.Affected if no input validation occurs before deserializing data from clients
The environment is affected if the API Gateway does not enforce mTLS for client connections AND lacks deserialization allowlists or input validation for incoming data.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement TLS/HTTPS to prevent traffic interception and tampering. Additionally, disable insecure deserialization or use safe deserialization formats with strict type checking and input validation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-11815 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-11815 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data