CVE-2026-54397
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 · uneditedA vulnerability in MISP’s non-REST event editing path allowed an authenticated user with event edit permissions to manipulate the submitted form data and set an event’s sharing_group_id to a sharing group they were not authorized to use. When distribution was set to sharing group distribution, the non-REST save path accepted the submitted sharing_group_id without performing the same sharing group authorization check enforced by the REST edit path. An attacker could exploit this by tampering with the event edit request and assigning an event to an undisclosed or unauthorized sharing group. This could result in unauthorized use of restricted sharing groups, disclosure of the sharing group name in event listings, and unintended modification of the event’s distribution metadata. The issue is fixed by validating that the selected sharing group can be used by the current user when the sharing group is changed, and by clearing sharing_group_id when the event distribution is not set to sharing group distribution.
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 analysisAn authorization check exists but is flawed, so it passes when it should fail. Attackers probe roles and object references to find the gap. Remediation means centralising and correctly implementing the access-control logic, then testing it against every role.
General guidance for the incorrect authorization class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
- Low
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- P
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/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
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.
dbcve · scopedPull the latest code from the MISP repository main branch or the specific commit 609ff6c785d7dae41d22ef43dda9347d34cd2a58
- Identify the current MISP installation version by checking the version file or admin interface
- Navigate to the GitHub repository and locate the commit 609ff6c785d7dae41d22ef43dda9347d34cd2a58 to review the code changes
- Apply the fix by modifying the non-REST event save controller to validate sharing_group_id authorization before saving, similar to the REST endpoint check
- Ensure that when distribution is changed away from 'sharing group' mode, the sharing_group_id field is cleared to prevent stale references
- After applying the patch, test the fix by creating an event with a restricted sharing group as an unauthorized user and verify the request is rejected
- Clear any MISP cache and restart web server services if required
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-54397 — 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-2026-54397 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