HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Gemini CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorKeep agent security open: sponsor a project, place a banner, or fund a security initiative.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 17507 mls membership checks compare a uint32 leafindex
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Plugins
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High · CVSS 8.7CVE-2026-17507

MLS membership checks compare a uint32 leaf_index as signed, admitting an out-of-range sender

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-17507 records a High severity (CVSS 8.7) vulnerability in MLS membership checks compare a uint32 leaf_index as signed, admitting an out-of-range sender. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc./bcmls (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Oct 2, 2026Updated Oct 2, 2026Source checked Oct 2, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 2, 2026Material review Oct 2, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 8.7
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 8.7. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc./bcmls (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc./bcmlsgeneric>=1.73 <1.861.86

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc./bcmls.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc./bcmls to 1.86 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Oct 2, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 2, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Oct 2, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • Kubio AI Page Builder <= 2.9.2 - Unauthenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting via SVG Comment Content (KSES Allowlist Bypass)Same generic ecosystem
  • Download Monitor <= 5.2.10 - Unauthenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Cross-Origin postMessage to Admin EditorSame generic ecosystem
  • Otter Blocks <= 3.2.6 - Authenticated (Subscriber+) Sensitive Information Exposure in Form Submissions Dashboard WidgetSame generic ecosystem
  • Apache Directory LDAP API: Denial of service via excessive memory allocation in BER decodeSame generic ecosystem
  • CMB2 <= 2.13.1 - Unauthenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting via 'textarea_code' FieldSame generic ecosystem
  • Relevanssi Premium <= 2.31.4 - Unauthenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting via '_rt' ParameterSame generic ecosystem

Record context

Vulnerability class
Secret Exfiltration
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-195
Source
CVE List V5
Source checked
Oct 2, 2026
References
2 linked sources
Open source record