CVE-2026-8874
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 · uneditedVersion 3.0.7 of the Securly Chrome Extension downloads JSON files containing crisis alert keywords and filtering rules over unencrypted HTTP via the Fetch API. Other endpoints in the same extension correctly fetch IWF and CIPA data over HTTPS, demonstrating an inconsistent implementation of TLS.
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 confidenceThe Securly Chrome Extension v3.0.7 uses the Fetch API to download crisis alert keywords and filtering rules over unencrypted HTTP, allowing MITM attackers to modify these safety-critical JSON files. Other endpoints in the same extension correctly use HTTPS, demonstrating the fix is straightforward but was inconsistently applied.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 3.0.7CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
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 Securly extension is installedOpen Chrome and navigate to chrome://extensions, then locate Securly in the list of installed extensionsAffected if The Securly extension is not listed in Chrome's installed extensions
-
Check installed version numberIn Chrome extensions page (chrome://extensions), enable Developer mode, then find Securly and note the version number displayedAffected if Version is exactly 3.0.7
-
Inspect extension files for HTTP Fetch callsClick the extension ID link on chrome://extensions to open the extension folder, then examine JavaScript files (particularly in js/ or scripts/ folders) for Fetch API calls that use http:// URLs for crisis alert or filtering rule endpointsAffected if Code contains Fetch calls with http:// (not https://) URLs for JSON files containing crisis keywords or filtering rules
-
Monitor network traffic for HTTP requestsUse Chrome DevTools (Network tab) while browsing, or a network proxy, to observe if the extension makes HTTP (not HTTPS) requests to external domains for JSON configuration dataAffected if HTTP requests are observed going to remote servers for JSON data related to crisis alerts or filtering rules
User is affected if Securly Chrome Extension version 3.0.7 is installed and the extension makes unencrypted HTTP requests for crisis alert keywords or filtering rules instead of using HTTPS.
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 dataReplace HTTP URLs with HTTPS for the crisis alert and filtering rule endpoints, verify the server supports TLS 1.2+, and validate the downloaded JSON integrity before use.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-8874 — 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-2026-8874 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