PaperCut NG/MF Unsafe Reflection Vulnerability
Exploited since 2026-08-31. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.
An unsafe dynamic class loading vulnerability exists in the database connection utilities of PaperCut MF and PaperCut NG. The application instantiates database driver classes based on configurable driver names without validating against an… More
An unsafe dynamic class loading vulnerability exists in the database connection utilities of PaperCut MF and PaperCut NG. The application instantiates database driver classes based on configurable driver names without validating against an allowlist of approved drivers. If an attacker can manipulate system configuration parameters, this enables the execution of arbitrary Java bytecode residing on the application classpath under the security context of the PaperCut server process.
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 high privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability; other systems can also be hit (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 requiredThe attacker needs an administrator-level account.High
- 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 that rely on it can have all their data read.High
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have any data changed.High
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can be taken down.High
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:HAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
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- MetasploitPaperCut NG/MF Unauthenticated RCE (CVE-2026-81578 + CVE-2026-82078)2026-08-27 · exploit · rank Excellent · has check
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2026-08-27Metasploit module publishedPaperCut NG/MF Unauthenticated RCE (CVE-2026-81578 + CVE-2026-82078)
- 2026-08-28CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-08-31Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
- 2026-10-21F5 rule names itEarliest entry we can see is an update
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)
Named by 2026-10-21; the first entry is an update, so the rule may be older.
Updated: signature 200013222 "PaperCut NG/MF Authentication Bypass" (Authentication/Authorization Attacks, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-81578, CVE-2026-82078.
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.