MISP: SQL injection via unvalidated ordering parameters in event and shadow attribute listings
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: partly blocked.
MISP is an open source threat intelligence and sharing platform. Prior to 2.5.37, a SQL injection vulnerability existed in the handling of user-controlled ordering parameters in the event and shadow attribute listing endpoints. The… More
MISP is an open source threat intelligence and sharing platform. Prior to 2.5.37, a SQL injection vulnerability existed in the handling of user-controlled ordering parameters in the event and shadow attribute listing endpoints. The affected code accepted order or sort values from request parameters and incorporated them into database query ordering clauses without sufficient validation of the requested field name. An attacker with access to the affected endpoints could craft a malicious ordering parameter to manipulate the generated SQL query. Depending on database permissions and query context, this could potentially allow unauthorized access to data, modification of query behavior, or other database-level impact. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.5.37.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 4.0Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.None
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
- Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.None
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.None
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2026-44381.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2026-05-13CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-09-16F5 ships a ruleMISP SQL Injection (1)
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of itparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of itparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
First rule 2026-09-16, 126 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200102214 "MISP SQL Injection (1)" (SQL-Injection, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-44381.
Added: signature 200102215 "MISP SQL Injection (2)" (SQL-Injection, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-44381.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.