CVE-2026-44364
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 · uneditedMISP modules are autonomous modules that can be used to extend MISP for new services. In 3.0.7 and earlier, a Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in the MISP Modules website allowed an attacker to cause an authenticated user to submit unintended requests to the home endpoint. The vulnerability was due to the home blueprint being exempted from CSRF protection. This could allow modification of session query data in the context of the authenticated user. The issue was fixed by enabling CSRF protection for the affected blueprint and hardening query parsing.
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 · high confidenceA CSRF vulnerability in MISP Modules 3.0.7 and earlier allowed attackers to exploit the home blueprint being exempted from CSRF protection, enabling modification of session query data through malicious requests that authenticated users unknowingly submit.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- P
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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.
-
Identify MISP Modules versionLocate the version file or check the installed package version (e.g., pip show misp-modules, git tag, or package.json depending on installation method)Affected if The installed version is 3.0.7 or any version lower than 3.0.7
-
Examine CSRF protection settingsInspect the application configuration or source code for CSRF protection settings, specifically looking for any exemption or exclusion of the 'home' blueprint from CSRF protection middlewareAffected if The home blueprint is explicitly exempted from CSRF protection in the configuration or code
-
Verify session query handlingReview the application code that handles session query data and the home route to confirm whether user-supplied input can modify session state without CSRF validationAffected if The home route processes query parameters that modify session data without requiring a valid CSRF token
A defender is affected if MISP Modules version 3.0.7 or earlier is installed AND the home blueprint has CSRF protection disabled, allowing unauthenticated modification of session query 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 dataUpdate MISP Modules to a version newer than 3.0.7 where CSRF protection is enabled for the home blueprint and query parsing is hardened.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44364 — 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-2026-44364 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