When Anthropic unveiled Mythos and Project Glasswing, the reaction was immediate and polarized. Some dismissed it as fear-driven marketing, while others treated it as a credible shift in the threat landscape.

Like with many things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I wanted to test that for myself, and since I recently got access to OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber program, I decided to take it for a spin.

GPT-5.4 identified the bugs and helped assemble a working exploit chain, but it wasn’t a simple “build me an exploit” prompt. Guiding it required domain knowledge, iterative probing, and knowing which paths were actually exploitable.

On modern browsers like Safari, exploitation is less about finding bugs and more about finding bugs that still matter after multiple layers of defense.

The bug I’m going to talk about today sits in a more interesting category. The bug itself looked contained, and in many ways it was. It did not provide a path to RCE or a sandbox escape. What it did instead was cross a different boundary entirely: it broke the Same-Origin Policy.

If you visited a malicious page from any Apple device, it could read authenticated cross-origin data from other sites you use, including access tokens and other sensitive data, making account takeover trivial.

The video below shows the PoC we sent Apple, demonstrating leakage of sensitive data from both Apple Connect and iCloud / Apple ID endpoints. Although this demo focuses on Apple services, the issue affects all websites. This means that by visiting a malicious website, sensitive data from other domains is at risk of being leaked.

The Sandbox Russian Doll

Browser exploitation in 2026 is a lot like being trapped in a Russian doll.

You start in the smallest doll, and every time you escape one layer you discover you are still trapped inside another one.

Finding a low-level memory bug is not the same thing as finding an exploit. Most of these bugs die in the gap between “memory corruption happened” and “something meaningful crossed a security boundary.”

On the outside you have the browser process model. Even if renderer code goes wrong, the browser is trying very hard to keep that damage inside the web content process.

Inside that you have the web security model: Same-Origin Policy, CORS, opaque responses, cookie scoping, and credential modes. Even if a page can trigger a cross-origin request, the renderer, and especially the Gigacage, should not be able to access the response bytes. Right?…

The Bug

The original bug lives in the refresh logic for non-shared resizable WebAssembly memory.

When a non-shared WebAssembly.Memory grows in BoundsChecking mode, JavaScriptCore can replace the underlying memory handle. That part is not the bug. The bug is what happens after that to the JS-visible resizable buffer returned by memory.toResizableBuffer().

The bug is simple enough that once I saw it, it was hard to unsee it. Safari’s grow path effectively does this:

And the refresh step effectively does this:

After memory.grow(), WebKit updates the buffer metadata, but leaves m_data pointing at the old freed allocation.

So after a grow, JavaScript can hold a buffer whose reported size is new, whose handle is new, but whose actual data pointer still references the old freed Primitive Gigacage allocation.

That turns into a stale typed-array window over freed memory.

On its own, this is already a real bug. But we’re still stuck inside the JavaScriptCore gigacage, effectively sandboxed. Without a second bug to break out into the renderer, it doesn’t chain into anything meaningful. What we have is a solid first-stage primitive, but no real security impact on its own.

Why it did not look exploitable at first

The stale window is confined to the Primitive Gigacage, which immediately limits what you can do with it. Many typical targets either never land there, lack useful structure, or fail to produce any cross-boundary effect.

So early on, it had all the hallmarks of a bug that looks promising but rarely goes the distance:

• easy source-level root cause
• visible stale memory behavior
• real reclaim
• no clean escape path

This is where a lot of low-level browser bugs die.

What changed the problem was a very different framing: maybe I did not need to escape the cage at all.

Maybe I just needed the browser to place something valuable inside it.

The Pivot

Instead of asking “how do I get from my stale WASM view to some protected browser state?” I started asking a better question:

“What browser code takes data that JavaScript is not allowed to read, but still copies that data into normal renderer memory?”

Because that is all I need.

I don’t need to break the abstraction.

I just need the browser to break it for me.

That naturally narrows the search space to subsystems that:

• handle sensitive cross-origin data, and
• still allocate ArrayBuffer-backed memory as part of their internal pipeline

That points straight at Fetch. The Fetch API clearly indicates that the response is opaque, meaning that its headers and body are not available to JavaScript.

Opaque Responses Are Supposed to Be Opaque

At the API level, the Fetch model here is straightforward.

If I do a cross-origin request with:

fetch(url, { mode: “no-cors”, credentials: “include” });

The browser may send the request, including cookies depending on context, but JavaScript receives an opaque response.

That means:

• I can hold the Response object
• but I cannot read the body bytes

And WebKit enforces that in the obvious place:

FetchBodyOwner::readableStream() blocks opaque bodies via isBodyNullOrOpaque().

So at first glance, everything looks fine. The body is hidden. The policy is enforced. Same-Origin Policy survives another day.

Except it does not.

The Fetch Behavior that Broke the Modal

The surprising part is Response.clone().

If FetchResponse::clone() is called while the response is still loading, WebKit will internally create a readable stream so it can tee the body between the original response and the clone.

That internal path does not apply the same opaque-body check first.

And once that happens, hidden response bytes start becoming very real renderer objects.

This is the part that made me stop and stare at the source, because the mismatch is right there.

The normal body path blocks opaque responses:

But FetchResponse::clone() does this while the response is still loading:

That is why it works.

The visible accessor path says “opaque bodies do not get a stream.” The clone path says “if it is still loading, create a stream so both clones can tee it.”

That second path is exactly what I needed.

The data flows through normal ArrayBuffer creation paths:

• buffered chunks go through tryCreateArrayBuffer()
• later chunks go through takeAsArrayBuffer()
• shared buffer data gets copied into ordinary ArrayBuffer allocations inside the renderer

So the policy ends up split in two:

• the public Fetch API says the body is opaque
• the renderer still materializes the opaque body into readable byte arrays during clone-time streaming

Combined with the stale WASM window, it becomes a SOP break.

The Chain

At a high level, the exploit became:

1. Force the target WASM memory into the BoundsChecking path.
2. Call memory.toResizableBuffer().
3. Grow the memory.
4. Keep the stale resizable buffer whose pointer still targets freed Primitive Gigacage pages.
5. Trigger a cross-origin fetch(…, { mode: “no-cors”, credentials: “include” }).
6. Call response.clone() while the response is still loading.
7. Let Fetch internals materialize the hidden body bytes into ordinary renderer ArrayBuffers.
8. Reclaim the stale WASM-covered pages with those allocations.
9. Read the cross-origin bytes through the stale view.

That is the entire trick.

I never needed response.text(). I never needed response.arrayBuffer(). I never needed the public API to hand me the body.

The browser copied the body into memory for its own internal bookkeeping, and the stale WASM view read it directly.

That is why this bug stopped being “some weird WASM UAF” and became “this completely breaks the Same-Origin Policy.”

The file:// Detour

One of the weirdest parts of the research was that the request side behaved differently depending on where I launched it from.

In my testing, cross-origin requests were much easier to get moving from file:// than from a normal https attacker page.

That sounds backwards until you look at WebKit’s handling of local origins.

Document.cpp has explicit special-casing around local documents and settings like:

• allowUniversalAccessFromFileURLs
• allowFileAccessFromFileURLs

MiniBrowser exposes those knobs too, which made file:// very useful as a research environment. It let me focus on the memory side and confirm the leak path before I had a clean web-facing story.

But I did not want a local-file party trick.

I wanted a real web exploit.

And from a normal https page, the same request pattern was not giving me the reliability I wanted.

That is where about:blank saved me.

Why about:blank saved the final POC

The final PoC opens an about:blank popup and performs the fetches from there:

This ended up mattering a lot.

At first I thought this was just an origin-inheritance trick. That part is real:

So about:blank does inherit the opener’s origin.

But that alone does not explain why the popup path behaved differently.

What actually seems to matter is Safari’s cookie / first-party bookkeeping. Fetch subresource requests copy document->firstPartyForCookies() into the request:

And WebKit’s cookie blocking logic bails out immediately if that first-party domain is empty:

That is a very different path from a normal attacker-controlled https page. From a regular https://attacker.example origin, the first party is the attacker site, so a request to the victim site looks third-party and Safari’s tracking-prevention logic can suppress cookies.

From the about:blank popup path, the security origin still comes from the opener, but the popup’s top-level URL / first-party context is no longer a normal registrable https site in the same way. In practice, that was enough to make credentials: “include” requests behave differently and get me the authenticated traffic pattern I needed.

So the important point is not “about:blank disabled CORS.” It did not. The important point is:

• the popup kept the opener’s origin
• the request still went through normal Fetch/CORS code
• Safari’s first-party cookie logic treated that popup context differently

That was the difference between “cross-origin request happens but is useless” and “cross-origin request comes back with authenticated bytes worth stealing.”

Why this was fun

This is my favorite kind of browser bug.

Not because the root cause was complicated. It was not. The WASM bug was almost embarrassingly direct.

And not because the final chain was huge. It was not.

It was fun because it is exactly the kind of bug modern browser architecture is supposed to suppress.

A stale pointer inside a cage is supposed to stay a stale pointer inside a cage.

An opaque response is supposed to stay opaque.

Those are both reasonable assumptions.

The exploit works because both assumptions were true only locally.

JavaScriptCore gave me a stale view that looked hard to use. WebCore Fetch gave me sensitive bytes that looked impossible to read.

Put them together and Safari’s Same-Origin Policy fell apart.

Disclosure

We reported our findings to Apple. Shortly after, a fix shipped, suggesting the issue was already known internally.

The vulnerability (CVE-2026-20664) is addressed in iOS 26.4 and iPadOS 26.4 (23E6254 and later), and macOS Tahoe 26.4 (25E253 and later). Make sure your systems are up to date.

Closing Thoughts

The biggest thing on my mind after working with these models is the leverage they provide, and what that means for N-days. A security patch in popular software used to hide the underlying exploit behind time, effort, and expertise. Now that you can scale tokens instead of effort, that barrier is mostly gone.

This doesn’t turn exploitation into a trivial task. You still need someone who understands what they are looking at, can filter noise, and can steer the process when it stalls. But AI changes the unit of work. Instead of deep, sequential effort, you get parallel exploration and rapid iteration. The constraint shifts from raw effort to how effectively an operator can guide multiple lines of inquiry at once.
`

The post Hacking Safari with GPT 5.4  appeared first on Blog.

The recent buzz around Anthropic’s Mythos model has been intense, and for good reason. Early reports suggest a model that significantly advances automated reasoning over large codebases, vulnerability discovery, and exploit generation. Some are already calling it a “game changer” for offensive security. 

But like most breakthroughs in AI, the reality is more nuanced. 

Let’s unpack what Mythos is, why it’s getting so much attention, and where the real impact will (and won’t) be. 

What Is Mythos, and Why It Matters 

At its core, Mythos is designed to operate deeply within software systems: 

• It can reason across entire codebases, not just snippets  

• It demonstrates strong capabilities in multi-step vulnerability discovery  

• It can potentially chain findings into realistic exploit paths  

This is what sets it apart from earlier models. Traditional LLMs often struggled with: 

• Context fragmentation (limited memory of large systems)  

• Superficial pattern matching (vs. true reasoning)  

• Weakness in multi-stage attack logic  

Mythos appears to push beyond that, closer to what human security researchers do when analyzing complex systems. 

That’s the hype. Now let’s put it into perspective.

1. Closed Systems Still Have a Natural Advantage

One of the most important constraints, often overlooked, is access. 

Organizations running: 

• Licensed binaries  

• Closed-source products  

• SaaS platforms  

are inherently less exposed to this class of AI-driven analysis. 

Why? Because Mythos appears to be most effective when it has full visibility into the source code. Without that: 

• Reverse engineering binaries is still hard and lossy  

• SaaS environments expose only interfaces, not logic  

This creates a natural barrier for attackers. 

Although “security through obscurity” isn’t a solution, in practice: 

• Open-source projects and exposed codebases will feel the impact first  

• Closed vendors still need to worry, but they’re not suddenly transparent overnight 

2. The Real Pressure Point: Time-to-Mitigation

AI doesn’t just change what attackers can do, it changes how fast everything happens.  

And this is where security vendors feel the most pressure. The challenge isn’t whether vulnerabilities exist, it’s how fast vendors can respond once they’re discovered. 

The new race: 

• AI/ human finds vulnerability →  

• AI Exploit is generated quickly →  

• Attack traffic emerges earlier →  

• Defenses must adapt in near real-time.

This shifts the competitive advantage to vendors that can: 

• Automate security workflows to 

• Rapidly understand new attack patterns  

• Generate mitigations  

• Deploy protections before mass exploitation 

3. The Budget Reality: AI Red-Teaming Isn’t Cheap 

One of the least discussed aspects of Mythos is cost. 

Running such a model at scale involves: 

• High compute costs  

• Expensive infrastructure  

• For example, Anthropic admitted that “Across a thousand runs through our scaffold, the total cost was under $20,000” for finding vulnerabilities in OpenBSD.

• Significant human validation effort 

And that last part is critical. 

Every finding still requires: 

• Verification (is it real?)  

• Reproduction  

• Impact assessment  

Which means more security engineers per finding, not less.

Organizations will need to start budgeting for: 

• AI-assisted red teaming  

• Dedicated pipelines to process findings  

• Integration into SDLC workflows  

This mirrors what we’ve already seen with GitHub Copilot-style assistants and AI-based code analysis tools.

Implication for attackers: 

These “doomsday” capabilities are not evenly distributed. 

• Well-funded actors (nation-states, top-tier cybercrime groups) → likely adopters  

• Opportunistic attackers → much slower to benefit  

So the threat landscape widens at the top, not uniformly across all attackers.

4. Bug Bounty Programs Will Feel the Noise First

One immediate and very practical impact: bug bounty platforms are about to get noisy. 

Expect a surge of: 

• AI-generated vulnerability reports  

• Poorly validated findings  

• Duplicates and false positives  

This creates a scaling problem for security teams. 

Organizations will need to adapt: 

• Stronger triage filtering mechanisms (likely AI-driven)  

• Reputation systems for researchers  

• Penalties for repeated false positives  

• Potential adjustments in bounty pricing  

Otherwise, teams risk wasting cycles on low-quality reports and missing real vulnerabilities buried in noise. Ironically, AI will be needed to defend against AI-generated reports.

5. Not All Vulnerabilities Are Equal

Another important nuance:  

Finding a vulnerability ≠ exploiting it at scale. 

Even with Mythos: 

• Many findings will be low impact  

• Exploitation may require environment specific conditions  

• Real-world constraints (auth, rate limits, monitoring) still apply  

This is where traditional security layers still matter: 

• WAF, API protection, Bot protection 

• Identity protection 

• Data protection 

• Threat reputation 

Mythos increases discovery capability, but doesn’t eliminate defense in depth. 

Final Thoughts 

The Mythos model presents a meaningful step forward. It brings AI closer to acting like a real security researcher, capable of deep reasoning and complex analysis. 

But it’s not a universal “break everything” button. 

• Closed systems still provide friction  

• Costs limit widespread misuse  

• Defensive technologies remain highly relevant  

• Operational processes (triage, mitigation) become the real bottleneck  

The hype focuses on capability. The reality is about constraints and execution. 

And as always in cybersecurity, the winners won’t be those with the best tools, but those who can operationalize speed, from detection to mitigation, at scale. 

The post Anthropic Mythos: Separating Signal from Hype appeared first on Blog.

Executive Summary

In this article, we disclose a new high severity unauthenticated remote denial‑of‑service vulnerability we identified and reported in React Server Components that we’ve dubbed “React2DoS”.  In this blog, we’ll analyze its impact and place it in the broader context of recently found Flight protocol vulnerabilities, especially CVE‑2026‑23864.

Introduction

We are in a phase of the web where performance and developer experience are no longer trade-offs, they’re expectations. Modern frameworks compete to ship less JavaScript, reduce client-side complexity, and move logic back to the server.

React, as one of the dominant forces in frontend development, has been at the forefront of this evolution. With the introduction of React Server Components (RSC), the ecosystem embraced a new model: components that execute exclusively on the server, access databases and secrets directly, and stream a serialized UI representation to the client.

This architecture promises smaller bundles, cleaner separation of concerns, and more efficient rendering. Instead of hydrating everything on the client, Server Components emit a structured stream that the browser reconstructs locally.

At the heart of this mechanism lies a custom streaming protocol known as Flight. Through Flight, React can serialize complex structures, like arrays, maps, object references, even promises and async boundaries, allowing the server to describe rich UI trees in a compact format.

This is powerful.

But history has shown that when we introduce custom serialization formats and complex parsers, we also introduce risk. The server must deserialize and reconstruct object graphs from client-controlled input. And complex parsing logic has long been fertile ground for vulnerabilities.

In our research we discovered a denial-of-service vulnerability that allows an attacker to impose disproportionate computation to the remote server.

React2Shell and subsequent DoS vulnerabilities

Earlier this year, the disclosure of React2Shell caught much of the community off guard, triggering emergency patches and intense scrutiny of the React Server Components architecture, amplified by waves of low-quality AI-generated analysis that blurred the line between verified facts and speculation. This episode also prompted deeper investigations into and led to new discoveries related to the security of the Flight protocol and related parsing mechanisms.

CVE‑2026‑23864 (CVSS 3.1 of 7.5), stood out as a notable example and serves as a useful reference for understanding the mechanics behind the issue we explore in this research.

Among other vectors, this vulnerability concerned the BigInt deserialization path in Flight:

• $n markers denote BigInt values
• No limit was enforced on digit length

Therefore, sending a million‑digit BigInt could cause a significant computation cost, and CPU exhaustion. An example payload could look like this:

0:"$n9999999999...[repeated 1 million times]"

In our setup, a single query like this could delay the server’s execution by several seconds if the inbound payload reaches the maximum allowed size (1MB with Node.js runtime, 10MB with Edge runtime).

This was the starting point of our research, and we tried to find payload that would trigger a similar, or superior cost to the server. This is exactly what we found, actually more computationally-intensive  by several orders of magnitude.

React2DoS

React relies on a mechanism known as the React Flight Protocol to serialize values that are sent to Server Functions.

On the client side, data is transmitted to the server as small pieces (or “chunks”), for example through form submissions:

payload = {
  "0": (None, '["$1"]'),
  "1": (None, '{"category":"vehicle","model":"$2:modelName"}'),
  "2": (None, '{"modelName":"tesla"}'),
}

As illustrated above, these chunks can reference one another.

After deserialization on the server, the reconstructed object looks like this:

{ "category": "vehicle", "model": "tesla" }

At first, we tried to measure the cost of execution of every type of reference supported by the Flight protocol. Among them, we looked at two promising ones: $Q and $W, respectively instantiating new Maps and Sets from the client request payload.

The first observation we made was that it was possible to reference the root element in the root element itself (!), which paved the way to recursive expressions:

“0” : [“$Q0”]

This, would cause the execution of the following JavaScript expression:

New Map([null])

Which makes perfect sense, because at the time of resolution of $Q0, $0 is not known yet.

However, what surprised us, was the fact that the following expression:

“0” : [“$Q0”, “$Q0” ..., “$Q0”] (x n)

did trigger the execution of the Map constructor n times!

Indeed, the ReactFlightReplyServer uses a `consumed` attribute to prevent multiple computations of the same reference and prevent abuse. But this mechanism only enters in action when the reference is successfully resolved (see Fig 1).

Fig. 1: Exception doesn’t prevent recomputation of the same faulty Map 

Because the `new Map` expression failed (new Map([null]) is not a valid JavaScript expression), this outcome was not stored anywhere. But surprisingly, the deserialization is not interrupted by this exception! 

The execution of the expression `new Map ([null])` is pretty cheap, it takes our server around 0.03ms. Virtually instant. But this is neglecting the fact that  a threat actor can insert more than 100,000 instances in a 1MB payload, leading to the cost of several seconds, comparable to the CPU exhaustion issue behind CVE‑2026‑23864 and described above. 

Considering this, we submitted a first report to Meta, sharing this POC and demonstrating the impact. 

But soon after, we realized there was a way more impactful payload we could generate by exploiting our original idea.  

Instead of sending a series of “$Q0” that would immediately trigger the exception, we decided to introduce a series of valid map entries at the start of the root entry, to force the Map constructor to iterate over them before triggering the expected exception (see Fig. 2). 

Fig. 2: Internal recursive resolution of “$0” 

By doing so, we achieved a quadratic complexity, and a much more expensive payload ! The optimal number setting is n/2 valid maps and n/2 map references to the 0 object (“$Q0”). 

CVE‑2026‑23864 (CPU exhaustion) vs React2DoS (CVE-2026-23869) 

With our new attack vector, the computation could easily last several minutes. Therefore, with only small payloads of tens of kilobytes, it was possible to initiate impactful DoS attacks. 

To give ourselves an idea of the impact of this attack vector, we computed a chart showing the comparison between CVE‑2026‑23864 (CPU exhaustion) and React2DoS. The result showed that after only a few kilobytes, React2DoS starts to stand out, and when the payload size reaches hundreds of kilobytes, it is already more powerful by several orders of magnitude (see Fig. 3). 

Fig. 3: Comparison React2DoS – CVE‑2026‑23864 

Therefore, with a single request, a threat actor can trigger a computation that will take minutes to handle. By repeating this, complete denial of service can be achieved. 

Mitigation 

The React team fixed this issue via setting the consumed flag before any map/set constructor was called.

The issue affects React Server Components version 19.2.4 and below. We recommend that you update to the latest available version that patches this vulnerability as soon as possible.  

If your application already sits behind an Imperva proxy, it is automatically protected against this attack. 

Conclusion 

This case highlights an important reality: the path to innovation inevitably introduces complexity, and therefore risk. As ecosystems evolve rapidly, staying up to date and remaining aware of newly discovered security issues is essential. 

In a more personal way, it was a pleasure for me to delve into one of the most used framework in the world and discover a finding with meaningful impact. This wouldn’t have been possible if researchers before didn’t pave the way with their investigations and their recent findings (React2Shell,  CVE‑2026‑23864…).  

Disclosure Timeline 

Feb 3 2026 – Report including first payload 

Feb 5 2026 – Second payload reported 

April 8 2029 – Vulnerability fixed in 19.2.5 (patch backported to versions 19.0.5, 19.1.6)

The post React2DoS (CVE-2026-23869): When the Flight Protocol Crashes at Takeoff appeared first on Blog.

Executive Summary

We identified a security weakness in n8n’s credential management layer that could have completely compromised the application’s security. This finding highlights the core risks of centralized authentication in workflow automation platforms.

As n8n serves as the central hub connecting critical systems and orchestrating business processes across teams, any gap in credential handling can potentially cascade across connected systems, disrupting operations, compromising data flows, and credentials.

While this issue was fixed in v2.6.4, it reminds us about the unique security challenges of AI automation platforms.

Introduction

We are in a moment where AI and automation platforms are rapidly becoming embedded in everyday operations, allowing teams to connect models, APIs, SaaS tools, and internal systems with minimal friction.

Platforms like n8n promise powerful automation through visual workflows and reusable credentials, lowering the barrier to orchestrating complex tasks across services. But this convenience comes with structural risk: these tools centralize highly sensitive tokens, OAuth flows, and API keys, effectively concentrating trust in a single automation layer.

When that layer fails to enforce basic security controls, the impact is not limited to one workflow, it can extend across every connected system. In this research, we examine how a Stored XSS vulnerability in n8n’s OAuth credential handling can lead to account takeover and broader instance compromise.

The Vulnerability

The vulnerability lies in how n8n handles the “Authorization URL” within the OAuth credential setup. OAuth (Open Authorization) is an authorization framework that allows an application to access a user’s data on another service without exposing the user’s password.

In a standard workflow, users configure OAuth credentials to authenticate n8n with an external provider. When a user clicks “Connect my account,” n8n opens a popup window pointing to the service’s authorization page.

However, we discovered that the frontend function responsible for opening this window did not validate the protocol of the provided URL (see below). This allowed an attacker to bypass the expected scheme and inject JavaScript code.

The Attack Flow

Because n8n allows credentials to be shared between users in the same instance (collaborative features), a threat actor can weaponize this weakness, see Fig 1.

Fig. 1: High level view of the attack flow

The steps are the following:

1. Preparation: The attacker creates a new credential using the “OAuth2 API” type.
2. Injection: In the “Authorization URL” field, instead of a valid URL, the attacker inserts a malicious JavaScript payload.
3. Trap: The attacker shares this credential with the victim (e.g., an administrator or a user with higher privileges).
4. Execution: The victim, seeing a shared credential, opens it and clicks “Connect my account.” The browser immediately executes the injected JavaScript in the context of the victim’s session instead of navigating to the remote authorization URL.

Demonstration Video

The following video demonstrates the exploitation chain: sharing the malicious credential with a victim account and triggering the XSS payload.

Root Cause

During the OAuth flow, the browser initiates a top-level navigation to the authorization URL in the oAuthCredentialAuthorize function of the credential service. However, this segment of the program missed sanitation of the Authorization URL.

Fig. 2: Vulnerable source code

Impact: Application Compromise

This is a stored XSS, meaning the payload is saved permanently in the database and served to any user who interacts with the credential. The impact of executing arbitrary JavaScript in the context of an n8n session is significant:

1. Account Takeover: The attacker can impersonate the victim’s in his session and force actions on their behalf, effectively taking over the account.
2. Credential Exfiltration: The attacker can then use the XSS to query the internal n8n API and retrieve other credentials stored in the instance.
3. Instance Control: With admin access gained via the XSS, the attacker can access more credentials, escalate privileges, and gain full control of the n8n instance.

Conclusion

Workflow automation tools like n8n are becoming the backbone of modern IT infrastructure. While they offer immense power and speed, they also centralize trust. A vulnerability in this layer can often be more damaging than a vulnerability in a single isolated application.

We recommend organizations treat their automation platforms as Tier-0 assets, enforce strict access controls, and ensure they are patched promptly.

Timeline

• Jan 29 : Disclosure of the issue
• Feb 6 : Issue fixed in v2.6.4

The post N8N: Shared Credentials and Account Takeover appeared first on Blog.

React Server Components (RSC) have introduced a hybrid execution model that expands application capabilities while increasing the potential attack surface.

Following earlier disclosures and fixes related to React DoS vulnerabilities, an additional analysis of RSC internals was conducted to assess whether similar denial-of-service risks remained.

This analysis identified a new denial-of-service (DoS) condition that, under specific circumstances, can render a React server unreachable.

Context

Previous reports showed that malformed requests could trigger excessive server-side computation during RSC rendering and serialization. While patches addressed the known attack patterns, it remained unclear whether these issues were isolated or indicative of broader weaknesses.

Technical Overview

The analysis focused on the following RSC code paths:

• Server Component request parsing
• Recursive resolution and payload generation

By evaluating server behavior when processing unexpected but syntactically valid inputs, an alternative execution path was identified in which server resources could be exhausted. This behavior is not covered by existing mitigations and could be abused to sustain a denial-of-service condition.

The issue was reported to the React security team. Due to the potential impact, exploitation details are not disclosed here.

Mitigation

While framework-level fixes are under review:

• Imperva customers are protected against this issue.
• Imperva’s Application Security solutions detect and block malicious request patterns that trigger abnormal server-side processing before vulnerable paths are reached.

Conclusion

This work highlights the importance of ongoing security evaluation of modern application architectures and the role of layered protections in mitigating denial-of-service conditions.

The post A New Denial-of-Service Vector in React Server Components appeared first on Blog.

What Is CVE-2026-21962?

CVE-2026-21962 is a critical (CVSS 10.0) vulnerability in the Oracle HTTP Server and the WebLogic Server Proxy Plug-in for Apache HTTP Server and Microsoft IIS. An unauthenticated attacker with HTTP access can exploit this flaw by sending crafted requests to the affected proxy components and bypass security controls. Successful exploitation can result in unauthorized creation, deletion, or modification of critical data, or full compromise of all data accessible through the affected servers.

The vulnerability affects multiple supported versions, including:

• Oracle HTTP Server and WebLogic Server Proxy Plug-in (Apache): 12.2.1.4.0, 14.1.1.0.0, 14.1.2.0.0
• WebLogic Server Proxy Plug-in for IIS: 12.2.1.4.0

Key aspects of the vulnerability include:

• Unauthenticated network access: Exploitation does not require credentials or user interaction.
• Low attack complexity: Attackers can exploit the issue with standard HTTP traffic.
• Maximum severity: With a CVSS score of 10.0, this is a top-tier risk for confidentiality and integrity impact.

Observations from Our Data

Since this CVE’s release, we’ve seen:

• Over 140,000 attack attempts, targeting 21 countries globally. Almost 75% of attacks target US-based sites, followed by Poland.

• Attacks from 9 source countries.

• Attacks targeting sites across 18 industries, primarily Computing and IT.

Mitigation and Protection

The definitive remediation for CVE-2026-21962 is applying Oracle’s January 2026 Critical Patch Update for all affected versions. Administrators should prioritize this patch given the severity of the issue.

Imperva customers using both CWAF and WAF Gateway are protected out-of-the-box.

Conclusion

CVE-2026-21962 represents a critical perimeter security risk for organizations running Oracle HTTP Server and WebLogic Proxy Plug-in components. Its combination of unauthenticated access, low attack complexity, and maximum CVSS rating makes it a high-priority patching and detection concern.

Imperva customers are protected against exploitation techniques associated with this vulnerability through our web application firewall and advanced HTTP traffic inspection capabilities. For any Oracle HTTP Server and WebLogic Proxy Plug-in users still running legacy proxy deployments, we strongly advise accelerating patch deployment and reviewing exposure based on your internal telemetry.

 

The post Imperva Customers Protected Against CVE-2026-21962 in Oracle HTTP and WebLogic appeared first on Blog.

Holiday shopping season is in full swing, and Black Friday 2025 continued to demonstrate that consumer demand and attacker activity shows no signs of slowing. According to Adobe Analytics, U.S. consumers spent $11.8 billion online on Black Friday, setting a new record and highlighting sustained strength in online shopping. Yet behind this surge in legitimate traffic, retailers also faced a sharp rise in automated abuse, account takeover attempts, and reconnaissance across their digital storefronts.

This post breaks down what we saw across our network during the Black Friday period, including traffic trends, attack behavior, targeted geographies, and insights retailers can apply to strengthen their defenses ahead of the holiday home stretch.

What We Saw

Massive Traffic Surges Extending Past Black Friday

Retail traffic surged 37% above November averages, peaking on Black Friday but continuing into the weekend of November 29–30. Traditionally, traffic dips slightly on Saturday before building again on Cyber Monday, but this year showed a clear shift: shoppers kept buying throughout the weekend. This aligns with broader retail trends showing consumers taking advantage of longer promotional windows rather than concentrating purchases on a single day.

For retailers, this means the “peak” period is expanding- and with it, the window of exposure to cyber threats.

Bot Attacks Rose 50%, Focused on High-Value Workflows

Alongside legitimate traffic, bot attacks on retail sites spiked 50% over the November average. The timing closely tracked promotional activity, suggesting attackers were attempting to exploit increased consumer volume to blend in and avoid detection.

Broadly, these bots targeted:

• Authentication and account flows (e.g., /login)
• Inventory and product data endpoints (e.g., /datastore, /event/)
• Transaction and application paths (e.g., credit-card application flows, lottery/promotion services, and user log endpoints)

This behavior reflects typical seasonal abuse campaigns: credential stuffing to hijack accounts, automated scraping to gain pricing or inventory intelligence, and attempts to manipulate promotions or loyalty flows.

Attacks Concentrated on the US, UK, and Australia

Malicious traffic during Black Friday was heavily concentrated in three markets: the US (46%), Australia (12%), and the UK (11%). These regions represent some of the world’s most active e-commerce ecosystems, and attackers mirrored legitimate consumer behavior by focusing on markets with the highest transaction volumes and promotional activity.

The US, in particular, drew nearly half of all observed attacks, consistent with its dominant share of global Black Friday spending. Australia and the UK followed, reflecting strong regional participation in holiday sales events and an attacker strategy aimed at exploiting high-demand markets where automated activity can more easily blend in with legitimate traffic.

For retailers operating in these geographies, the data underscores the importance of region-aware threat monitoring and the need to maintain heightened vigilance throughout the extended holiday weekend.

Attack Patterns Reveal Automation, ATO Prep, and Abuse at Scale

Based on attacker activity observed over the holiday shopping weekend, several clear patterns emerged, showing a mix of high-volume automation, credential-based attacks, and spam and proxy abuse. Overall, the attack data suggests that adversaries were focused on the following behaviors:

1. Heavy Use of Known Bad Bots and Automated Browsers

A significant portion of malicious traffic came from known automated frameworks, including headless browsers and scripted tools designed to mimic real users. This type of activity typically supports:

• Large-scale login attempts
• Price, inventory, or content scraping
• Testing of checkout, promotion, and product pages for weaknesses

Attackers were industrializing their activity using automation that can rapidly adapt during peak events.

2. Preparing and Executing Account Takeover (ATO)

We observed high levels of activity associated with login reconnaissance and credential-testing behavior, indicating attempts to stage or execute ATO. Attackers were:

• Testing large volumes of username/password combinations
• Probing login endpoints to identify which attempts were blocked, challenged, or allowed
• Taking advantage of elevated holiday traffic to blend their activity into normal user patterns

This aligns with typical seasonal fraud behavior, where attackers target stored payment methods, loyalty balances, and customer identities.

3. Evading Detection Through Proxies and Client Impersonation

A large volume of traffic originated from anonymous proxies, VPNs, and other anonymization services, combined with indicators of client spoofing meant to disguise automation. Attackers were:

• Rapidly rotating IP addresses
• Using advanced bots, attempting to masquerade as legitimate browsers
• Using more simple bots, which use fingerprints or user agents that fell outside normal human patterns

In response, much of this traffic triggered JavaScript challenges or CAPTCHA enforcement, forcing suspicious clients to prove they were human.

4. Abusing Forms and Content Channels for Spam

We also observed activity consistent with comment spam, referrer manipulation, and other low-effort abuse aimed at exploiting retail sites as platforms for unwanted advertising or redirection. This typically includes:

• Submitting spam content through comment or feedback forms
• Inserting malicious or low-quality URLs via referrer fields
• Attempting to poison analytics or direct traffic elsewhere

While not as immediately damaging as ATO, these campaigns can harm site performance, customer trust, and brand analytics.

What This Means for Retailers

Black Friday 2025 reinforced several themes:

1. The peak holiday season is widening.
   High traffic persisted later into the weekend than in prior years. Retailers should consider extending peak staffing and monitoring coverage accordingly.
2. Attackers are increasingly using shopper traffic as camouflage.
   Surges in human activity closely mirror surges in automated abuse. Retailers need strong bot detection, fingerprinting, and behavioral analysis—not just rate limiting.
3. API security is now as important as web application security.
   Many of the top targeted URLs were APIs tied to data, personalization, or analytics. These endpoints often sit behind the UI and may not receive the same scrutiny as consumer-facing pages.
4. Geographic targeting is aligned with opportunity.
   The US, Australia, and UK remain prime markets for both legitimate and malicious traffic. Retailers serving these regions must expect elevated attack pressure during every promotional period.

Conclusion

This year’s Black Friday illustrated both consumer resilience and the evolving sophistication of attackers. Retailers saw new sales records, and attackers took advantage of the same moment to blend in, scale operations, and probe for weaknesses.

As the holiday season continues, retailers should ensure that defenses are calibrated for:

• Sustained high traffic (not just one peak day)
• Increased bot sophistication
• ATO protection
• Region-specific targeting aligned with revenue hotspots

By understanding the patterns we saw during Black Friday, retailers can prepare for the continued wave of holiday traffic and ensure a safer, smoother experience for their customers through the end of the year.

The post Black Friday 2025 in Review: What Retailers Need to Know About This Year’s Holiday Shopping Season appeared first on Blog.

After our research on Cursor, in the context of developer-ecosystem security, we turn our attention to the Jupyter ecosystem. We expose security risks we identified in the notebook’s export functionality, in the default Windows environment, to help organizations better protect their assets and networks.

Executive Summary

We identified a new way external Jupyter notebooks could be exploited by threat actors to lure unsuspecting users and compromise their workstation.

Companies are recommended to use a centralized Jupyter server, stay up to date and strictly restrict external files susceptible to processing with Jupyter software.

Introduction

Jupyter notebook is quite an institution in the development of AI projects. Back in 2015, around 200,000 notebooks were publicly available on GitHub—by early 2021 that number had surged to nearly 10 million. Used by more than 80 % of data scientists and AI engineers worldwide, Jupyter is deeply embedded in every stage of AI workflows, from exploratory analysis and visualization to model prototyping and collaboration.

When investigating this ecosystem, our approach was to try to imagine where a threat actor could find his way through, and leverage functionalities to exploit victims’ environments. The first direction came surprisingly easily: the configuration files.

Configuration files are often considered innocuous. However, they may include obscure parameters that most users aren’t aware of. Ignoring them would be a critical mistake.

Config files have led to vulnerabilities in many other instances. For example, in VSCode’s IDE, the .vscode/settings.json config file was also a key component in multiple high severity vulnerabilities discovered (CVE‑2021‑34529 , CVE‑2025‑53773 or CVE-2025-54130).

One specificity of the Jupyter ecosystem that makes this attack vector even more interesting is the fact that configuration files are also perfectly valid Python executables- making them easier to exploit.

Jupyter Configuration Files

The most common configuration file is jupyter_notebook_config.py, typically found in the user-specific configuration directory (~/.jupyter/). It’s responsible for defining core Notebook server settings such as network bindings, authentication options, file system paths, and various security-related parameters. However, other config files may also be used depending on the component, such as jupyter_nbconvert_config.py for export settings, or jupyter_server_config.py for Jupyter Server.

Configuration files can actually exist in any directory, allowing for layered overrides. Available options cover a wide range of functionality, from UI behavior and authentication to kernel management, export formats, logging, and more. This approach gives users fine-grained control over the entire Jupyter ecosystem.

For example:

c = get_config()
c.NotebookApp.port = 8888
c.FileContentsManager.save_script = True

However, acknowledging a high severity impact, Jupyter decided in October 2022 to remove CWD from the config paths, reducing the risk presented significantly.

This was the starting point of our research. We started searching for a similar or stronger way to exploit the same idea: having a file whose name is not constrained adjacent to a jupyter notebook, assuming an unsuspecting user would trigger an innocuous operation on a perfectly legit Jupyter notebook on the official Jupyter software and inadvertently allow full system compromise.

And this is exactly what we found by investigating the official export tool of Jupyter, nbconvert.

The Vulnerability

The vulnerability we discovered allows arbitrary code execution on Windows machines when exporting a notebook to PDF. By placing a properly named, malicious script in the notebook folder location, an attacker could hijack the conversion process and execute code with the privileges of the user.

When a Jupyter notebook containing SVG output is exported via nbconvert, the svg2pdf.py preprocessor is triggered to convert SVG images via the Inkscape tool. During this process, the path to Inkscape executable is resolved using Python’s shutil.which() via the following expression:

inkscape_path = which("inkscape")

without including inkscape anywhere as a mandatory nbconvert dependency. This opened the door to unintended code execution as the following figure shows:

Fig. 1: High level flow of exploitation of the security issue

shutil.which behavior is controlled internally by the Windows API function NeedCurrentDirectoryForExePathW, which returns TRUE (include CWD) when the NoDefaultCurrentDirectoryInExePath environment variable is not set, which is the default configuration on standard Windows installations.

In Python versions earlier than 3.12, `shutil.which()` ignores the `NoDefaultCurrentDirectoryInExePath` environment variable entirely, making it impossible to prevent this unsafe search behavior through configuration.

Python 3.12 and later versions properly respect this environment variable when set, but the variable remains unset by default on Windows systems, leaving many vulnerable.

Since nbconvert officially supports Python versions starting from 3.9, it includes versions that are affected by this issue both ways.

CVE-2025-53000

This unsafe lookup behavior aligns with CWE-427: Uncontrolled Search Path Element. Therefore, we recommended disabling the searching of inkscape software from CWD and relying on fixed safe search places.

Upon receiving our report, the Jupyter team reproduced the issue, acknowledged the associated risk, and requested a CVE (see below). A discussion was then initiated regarding how to fix the issue. However, the Jupyter team eventually stopped responding to our messages and has not addressed the issue to date.

CVE-2025-53000 has been assigned to this vulnerability. At the time of publication, the Github advisory has not yet been released by the maintainers.

Because export functionality is commonly used and generally trusted, it presents an attractive target for attackers, and especially in environments where notebooks are frequently shared—such as academic research groups, data science teams, or educational institutions—the potential for exploitation increases substantially.

Eventually, following our 90-day policy, we decided to publish this advisory to help protect the community.

Demonstration Video

The following demonstration video was recorded on a Windows 10 Enterprise x64 machine with default settings, using miniconda3 and Python 3.13.9, using the latest available Jupyter software versions, including:

Jupyter Core 5.9.1, nbconvert 7.16.6, and Notebook 7.5.0

Post Exploitation

Once successfully triggered, this vulnerability gives the attacker arbitrary code-execution in the context of the user. This immediately impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as the attacker can access, modify, or disrupt the user’s data and workflows. On typical Windows data-science workstations, victim accounts almost always have:

• Direct access to sensitive notebooks and datasets.
• Cached cloud credentials (AWS CLI, Azure CLI, gcloud, Databricks etc.)
• Locally installed package managers (conda, pip, winget) and DevOps pipelines that will happily run additional code.

This potentially amplifies the radius of compromise, allowing its effects to spread beyond the initial workstation.

Recommendations

Companies are recommended to rely on a centralized Jupyter server, ensure that all Jupyter-related software remains up to date, and enforce strict restrictions on external files that may be processed through Jupyter tools.

It is also recommended to enable the NoDefaultCurrentDirectoryInExePath environment variable to reduce the risk of unintentionally executing files from untrusted locations.

Conclusion

This vulnerability shows how the invisible glue of our workflows can become points of failure when not properly scrutinized.

We expect more vulnerabilities to surface in this fast-growing AI ecosystem as workflows become more automated, composable, and cloud-integrated, and we hope this report encourages teams to take a closer look at the quiet dependencies holding their environments together.

Timeline

• June 8: Disclosure report submitted.
• June 12: Issue reproduced.
• June 25: CVE reservation by Jupyter team.

The post Code Execution in Jupyter Notebook Exports appeared first on Blog.

Introduction and Vulnerability Overview 

Earlier this month, Imperva published an initial advisory outlining how our customers were protected against the newly disclosed React2Shell vulnerability impacting React Server Components (RSC). That post focused on the essentials: a critical flaw arising from unsafe server-side deserialization of client-controlled RSC payloads, its potential to enable unauthenticated remote code execution, and what we do to protect against it.  

In this follow-up, we expand on that foundation by examining what makes this vulnerability so dangerous. We explore the real-world footprint of this vulnerability, look at how it has appeared in the wild across different countries and sites, examine recorded exploit attempts that use this vulnerability as an entry point in opportunistic malware campaigns, and assess how the flood of AI-generated PoCs is complicating real-world defenses. 

General Statistics 

Before diving into the technical details, let’s begin with a macro-view of its real-world impact across the globe. 

Over the past week, Imperva sensors recorded over 127 million requests related to React2Shell (CVE‑2025‑55182) probing and exploitation attempts, highlighting the scale and automation targeting this vulnerability. These attempts spanned across more than 87 thousand distinct sites, showing that opportunistic scanning far outweighs targeted, single-tenant attacks.  

Activity was observed across 128 countries, with the United States and Singapore emerging as the most heavily targeted regions, underscoring the global reach of this CVE. 

The industry reach is widespread, although Education and Financial Services sites collectively account for almost half of all attacks.

The PoC Slop

Shortly after the public disclosure of React2Shell (CVE-2025-55182), a flood of what claimed to be “proof-of-concept” exploits began circulating. As the original disclosure site warns, many of these PoCs were invalidly crafted under incorrect assumptions, such as requiring explicit exposure of dangerous server-side functionality such as child_process.exec, vm.runInThisContext, or fs.writeFile rather than exploiting the actual flaw in the RSC Flight deserialization logic.

This surge of AI-generated PoC samples has a harmful side effect: it has muddied the waters for defenders. Instead of concentrating on the real vulnerability, security teams must sift through a sea of false or irrelevant exploit attempts. Attackers and bots are now producing a vast number of convincing-looking payloads, making it much harder for defenders to tell legitimate exploits from background noise.

An example of AI POC:

Malicious campaigns

In the immediate aftermath of the React2Shell disclosure, Imperva Threat research observed a large volume of malicious campaigns leveraging the vulnerability as an entry point. The following is a summary of just a few of the campaigns we observed along with the relevant IoCs:

1. Linux Remote Access Trojan Campaign
2. XNote RAT
3. Snowlight dropper
4. ReactOnMyNuts: Botnet and Cryptominer spreader campaign
5. Runnv Cryptojacking campaign

1. Linux Remote Access Trojan Campaign

Description:

A widespread campaign, where attackers leveraged the React Server Components vulnerability to download a malicious RAT executable. Once installed, the malware contacts a C2 server and retrieves JSON-based task instructions, such as running system commands, opening a reverse shell, and uploading or downloading files.

Top Targeted Countries: United States, Indonesia Thailand, Brazil, United Kingdom

Top Targeted Industries: Telecom and ISPs, Business, Financial Services, Gambling

Malicious command:

IoCs:

2. XNote RAT

Description:

A highly targeted campaign, affecting only financial services sites in Hong Kong, utilizing the React2Shell vulnerability to deploy the Xnote Remote Access Trojan Linux malware. The Xnote malware was exposed by Russian anti-virus company Doctor Web, who believe that there is “good reason to believe that some members of the Chinese hacker group called ChinaZ took part in the development of this Trojan.”

Targeted Country: Hong Kong

Targeted Industry: Financial Services

Malicious command:

IoCs:

3. Snowlight dropper

A campaign focused on deploying the SnowLight dropper through the React2Shell vulnerability. SnowLight serves as both an initial access vector and a persistence mechanism, executing malicious scripts that retrieve and install additional, more advanced payloads, most notably the VShell Remote Access Trojan (RAT).

SnowLight is associated with Chinese state-sponsored threat actors tracked as UNC5174, a group known for targeting research and education institutions, businesses, charities, NGOs, and government organizations across Southeast Asia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Targeted Countries: Indonesia, Australia, United States, Kuwait

Targeted Industry: Financial Services, Telecom and ISPs, Retail

Malicious command:

IoCs:

4. ReactOnMyNuts: Botnet and Cryptominer spreader campaign

Description:

A campaign utilizing the React2Shell vulnerability to spread both Mirai and XMRig cryptojacking malware samples using shared server architecture. The attackers used the vulnerability to execute a one-liner command aimed at downloading and installing both Mirai botnet and XMRig cryptojacking malware.

Cryptojacker configuration showing wallet addresses

Top Targeted Countries: United States, Australia, United Kingdom, Argentina, Columbia

Top Targeted Industries: Healthcare, Business, Financial Services, Computing & IT

Malicious commands:

IoCs:

5. Runnv Cryptojacking campaign

Description:

A cryptojacking campaign, with indicators of Chinese origin. The attackers utilized the React2Shell vulnerability to execute a dropper bash script, which downloads several second stage files including bash scripts and gzip compressed data. These components form the code and configuration of the cryptojacking operation. From an investigation of the wallet addresses used in the campaign we can see that (at the time of investigation) the threat actors were making around 170 USD per day, or around 62,050 USD per year.

Screenshot downloader script showing Chinese characters

Crypto wallet address:

Campaign Monero Wallet Statistics

Top Targeted Countries: United States, Brazil, United Kingdom, Colombia, Canada

Top Targeted Industries: Business, Financial Services, Lifestyle, Healthcare

Malicious commands:

IoCs:

Conclusion

The React2Shell vulnerability has quickly evolved from disclosure to widespread exploitation, with over 127 million attack attempts targeting more than 87,000 sites across 128 countries observed on the Imperva network alone within the first week. The campaigns documented here, from state-sponsored RATs to cryptojacking operations demonstrate how rapidly threat actors weaponize critical vulnerabilities. Imperva Cloud WAF and On-Premises WAF customers remain fully protected against these exploitation attempts.

The post Chain Reaction: Attack Campaign Activity in the Aftermath of React Server Components Vulnerability appeared first on Blog.

Overview

On December 3, 2025, the React and Next.js teams disclosed a critical security vulnerability (CVSS 10.0), identified as React2Shell, affecting applications that leverage React Server Components together with Server Actions or Server Functions.

The React2Shell vulnerability stems from improper validation of client-supplied data within certain server-side React features. An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this flaw by sending specially crafted requests, leading to unexpected server-side behavior. Successful exploitation could result in unauthenticated remote code execution.

This vulnerability requires no authentication and affects a wide range of modern React/Next.js deployments.

• Primary CVE: CVE-2025-55182 (React Core)
• Downstream tracking: CVE-2025-66478 (Next.js)

What Causes the Vulnerability

The affected functionality involves the mechanism React uses to receive and interpret data for server-side features. Certain malformed or intentionally crafted inputs may trigger unsafe processing paths on the server.

The React and Next.js teams have released security updates that strengthen these validation steps and prevent unintended behavior.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE) on servers running React Server Components.

Applications using React Server Components are vulnerable even if they do not explicitly define Server Function endpoints.

In effect, a malicious actor can send specially crafted requests to a vulnerable server and, due to insecure deserialization of serialized payloads, trigger unintended server behavior including arbitrary code execution.

As of this advisory, there is no evidence of active exploitation in the wild. However, numerous unauthorized or fake proof-of-concept (POC) exploits have been circulated publicly, which may cause confusion or unintended harm if tested without proper validation.

Affected Versions:

• React: 19.0.0, 19.1.0–19.1.1, 19.2.0
• js (App Router): 15.x ≤ 15.5.6, 16.x ≤ 16.0.6

Patched versions:

• React: 19.0.1, 19.1.2, 19.2.1
• js: 15.5.7+, 16.0.7+, 16.1+

Imperva Proactive Response

Imperva’s Threat Research team initiated an immediate investigation to assess the potential impact on customer environments.

Within hours, we:

• Analyzed the vulnerability and mapped out the most plausible exploitation paths
• Developed and validated virtual patching rules designed to detect and block malicious request patterns associated with the issue
• Rolled out these protections automatically across the entire Imperva Cloud WAF customer base

All cloud protections are already active, require no change from customers, and continue to be monitored and refined as new information becomes available. On-prem customers should review the Community Guide to manually deploy this policy.

Conclusion

This is a significant framework-level security issue affecting widely used technologies. Imperva customers are already protected through our rapid response and proactive security controls. We will continue to track this vulnerability closely and update protections as new information becomes available.

While Imperva protections mitigate known attack vectors, customers should:

1. Update React and Next.js to the vendor-provided patched versions
2. Review any server-side features that accept data directly from clients
3. Continue monitoring vendor advisories for future updates

For further assistance, please contact Imperva Support or your Customer Success representative.

The post Imperva Customers Protected Against React Server Components (RSC) Vulnerability appeared first on Blog.

At the end of October 2025, Oracle released an emergency security alert addressing CVE-2025-61757, a high-severity authentication-bypass flaw that enables remote code execution in the Identity Manager product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (versions 12.2.1.4.0 and 14.1.2.1.0). Multiple threat actors are already exploiting the vulnerability in the wild, and it was added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog on November 21, 2025. 

Oracle Identity Manager is widely deployed across large enterprises, particularly in finance, government, healthcare, and other sectors that rely heavily on Oracle infrastructure. Because it remains a core identity platform for many organizations, this vulnerability significantly elevates risk, making CVE-2025-61757 especially critical. 

The Vulnerability 

Recent disclosures indicate that, unlike previous Oracle CVEs, this vulnerability is straightforward and highly susceptible to exploitation by threat actors. The vulnerability originates from an authentication bypass in Oracle Identity Manager’s REST APIs, where attackers can trick the security filter into treating protected endpoints as public by appending parameters such as ?WSDL or ;.wadl to the URL path. This exposes sensitive endpoints like:

After gaining unauthenticated access, attackers can interact with a Groovy script compilation endpoint. Although this endpoint is not intended to execute scripts, it can be exploited to run malicious code during the compilation process by abusing Groovy’s annotation-processing feature. 

This flaw chain allowed researchers to achieve pre-authentication remote code execution on vulnerable Oracle Identity Manager instances. 

What We’ve Seen 

Over the past week, more than 300,000 attack attempts have been detected targeting this vulnerability. These attacks are occurring globally across over 18 countries, with the majority focused on the US and France. 

Computing, healthcare, and business sites are hit the hardest by attack attempts. 

Bottom Line 

CVE-2025-61757 is a critical authentication bypass vulnerability with a high operational impact, potentially allowing attackers to achieve remote code execution. 

The Imperva Threat Research group tracked and identified the exploitation chain of this vulnerability, ensuring that Imperva customers with Elastic WAF, Cloud WAF, or On-Prem WAF are now protected out of the box. 

The post CVE-2025-61757: Imperva Customers Protected Against Critical Oracle Identity Manager Authentication Bypass Leading to Remote Code Execution appeared first on Blog.