Jan 1, 2026·5 min read·20 visits
Temporal's frontend failed to cross-check the namespace of an internal 'embedded' request against the outer wrapper request. An attacker could wrap a `StartWorkflow` command claiming to be for 'Namespace B' (high limits) inside a request authorized for 'Namespace A' (low limits). The server validated against B but executed in A, effectively bypassing namespace-level constraints.
A logic flaw in Temporal's `ExecuteMultiOperation` API allowed authenticated users to execute workflows in one namespace while validating them against the policies of another. By embedding a request with a mismatched namespace ID, attackers could bypass rate limits and feature gates.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/S:N/AU:Y/R:U/RE:L/U:Green| Product | Affected Versions | Fixed Version |
|---|---|---|
Temporal Server Temporal Technologies | >= 1.24.0, < 1.27.4 | 1.27.4 |
Temporal Server Temporal Technologies | >= 1.28.0, < 1.28.2 | 1.28.2 |
Temporal Server Temporal Technologies | >= 1.29.0, < 1.29.2 | 1.29.2 |
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|---|
| CWE | CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization) |
| CVSS v4.0 | 1.3 (Low) |
| Vector | CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N |
| Attack Vector | Network (gRPC) |
| Exploit Complexity | Low |
| Privileges Required | Low (Valid Namespace Access) |
The software performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. This allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.
An incomplete mitigation of a predecessor vulnerability (GHSA-xvp4-phqj-cjr3 / CVE-2026-35671) in phpMyFAQ leaves sister administrative API endpoints vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR). Specifically, the `editUser` and `updateUserRights` endpoints lack object-level access controls, permitting authenticated low-privilege administrators to escalate their privileges or hijack SuperAdmin accounts.
A critical-severity Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) and Content-Type spoofing vulnerability in Remark42 (versions 1.6.0 through 1.15.0) allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary client-side script code via a crafted image proxy request.
CVE-2026-53462 is a heap Use-After-Free (UAF) vulnerability in ImageMagick's vector drawing subsystem, specifically within the coordinate allocation mechanism in CheckPrimitiveExtent. By parsing a crafted vector image (such as SVG or MVG) with extremely complex primitives, an attacker can trigger a memory reallocation failure. If the application fails to handle this allocation failure cleanly, it leaves a dangling pointer that can subsequently be accessed or freed again, causing memory corruption or an application crash.
A critical security flaw was identified in the Go package golang.org/x/crypto/ssh/agent. The vulnerability arises during the serialization of key constraints when adding SSH identities to a remote agent or an in-memory keyring. Specifically, custom constraint extensions, such as destination restrictions like restrict-destination-v00@openssh.com, were silently omitted from serialization in client requests. This omission allowed keys to be loaded into the remote agent with zero destination-based restrictions, enabling unauthorized users with access to the agent socket on intermediate hosts to authenticate to any downstream host without policy enforcement. The issue was resolved in version v0.52.0 of the golang.org/x/crypto library.
A high-severity Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability (CVE-2026-46597 / GO-2026-5013) exists in the golang.org/x/crypto/ssh module before version v0.52.0. The flaw stems from an incorrect operator order during a type conversion of the GCM packet padding size, allowing a remote, unauthenticated attacker to trigger an out-of-bounds slice runtime panic and crash the Go process.
A critical security bypass vulnerability was discovered in the Go SSH server implementation within the golang.org/x/crypto/ssh package. When an SSH server authentication callback returned a PartialSuccessError alongside non-nil Permissions, the server silently discarded these permissions before the subsequent authentication step. Consequently, once the user completed the second-factor authentication, the session-level restrictions were dropped, granting the client unauthorized capabilities.