SysReptor: Session Fixation in Password-Protected Shared Notes

Not in CISA KEVTrending #13CVE-2026-81181CWE-384

Not confirmed exploited. No WAF vendor names it yet.

Edge rules

0/8

Our test

No exploit yet

CVSS

3.7

EPSS

—

Posts, 14d

Published

2026-09-18

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2026.68, the password authentication flow for protected shared notes does not rotate the session identifier after successful authentication, allowing session fixation. An attacker who can obtain an unauthenticated SysReptor session cookie, place it in a victim's browser, and know the shared-note URL where the victim authenticates can reuse the fixed session after the victim enters the correct password and access that shared note. The main SysReptor login flow is not affected. This issue is fixed in version 2026.68.

Edge coverage

Claimed by vendors

CloudflareNo public claimNot named AWSNo public claimNot named Microsoft AzureNo public claimNot named Google CloudNo public claimNot named FastlyBefore feed historyOlder than its feed F5No public claimNot named AkamaiNo public sourceNo public changelog OWASP CRSNo public claimNot named

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page

Ask about CVE-2026-81181: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1

3.7Low

Low · 3.7 / 10

Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with low privileges and user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and integrity.

Over the internetAny user loginNeeds a user to actHard to pull off

How the score is built8 metrics

Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
Network
Attack complexityThe attack only works when conditions outside the attacker's control line up.
High
Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
Low
User interactionA user has to do something first, such as open a file or click a link.
Required
ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
Unchanged
Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.
Low
Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.
Low
Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record

ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

None found

0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

2026-09-18
CVE published
CVE List
2026-11-02
First social mention we saw

Vendor statements

Quoted

CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

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 RulesNo public claim

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)No public claim

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 rulesNo public claim

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 patchesBefore feed history

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)No public claim

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 signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

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.