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
  • Antigravity 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 77710 stix2 parser confusion and mass assignment allow
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 Servers
  • 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
Medium · CVSS 6.9CVE-2026-77710

STIX2 Parser Confusion and Mass Assignment Allow Unauthorized MISP Attribute Metadata Injection in misp-stix libraryCVE-2026-77710

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-77710 records a Medium severity (CVSS 6.9) vulnerability in STIX2 Parser Confusion and Mass Assignment Allow Unauthorized MISP Attribute Metadata Injection in misp-stix library. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps MISP/misp-stix (generic), MISP/misp-stix (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 Aug 21, 2026Updated Aug 26, 2026Source checked Oct 6, 2026First seen by HOL Aug 21, 2026Material review Aug 26, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Medium · CVSS 6.9
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Not reported

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 6.9. 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 MISP/misp-stix (generic), MISP/misp-stix (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
MISP/misp-stixgeneric0Not reported
MISP/misp-stixgeneric>=0 <=2026.7.8Not reported

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for MISP/misp-stix, MISP/misp-stix.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Monitor this advisory for an available fix and review any installs of the affected package.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Aug 21, 2026

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

    Aug 26, 2026

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

    Aug 21, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

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

A vulnerability in misp-stix could allow a crafted STIX document to influence security-sensitive MISP attribute metadata during import. The STIX import logic automatically selected between the internal MISP parser and the external STIX parser based on metadata contained in the STIX document itself. For STIX2, the presence of MISP-specific tool labels could cause a document to be classified as originating from MISP; similarly, STIX1 relied on the document title. These classification indicators are fully controlled by the STIX producer and therefore cannot constitute a trusted indication of the document's origin. The accompanying fix explicitly notes that the parser choice was previously based solely on labels or header titles that any producer could write, and introduces an explicit classification parameter allowing callers to override this detection. When STIX2 content was handled as an internal MISP export, attributes contained in an x-misp-object were converted by copying the complete x_misp_attributes dictionary and passing it directly to misp_object.add_attribute(). Consequently, a crafted STIX bundle could supply fields that were not part of the expected STIX-to-MISP round-trip format, including security-sensitive properties such as distribution, sharing_group_id, tags, or other MISP attribute fields. An attacker able to provide a STIX document for import could therefore spoof the markers used to identify MISP-generated content and inject additional attribute properties. This could alter the distribution, sharing restrictions, classification, or semantic metadata of imported attributes, potentially causing information to be shared contrary to the importing organization's policy or influencing downstream processing and automation based on attacker-controlled tags or metadata. The vulnerability results from dynamically assigning externally supplied object properties without restricting them to an expected set of attributes, matching CWE-915. MITRE specifically describes this weakness as accepting externally influenced fields without controlling which object attributes may be modified and recommends an allow-list, which is the approach implemented by the patch. The parser-selection issue additionally corresponds to CWE-807, because an untrusted value was used to make a security-relevant trust/classification decision. The attack is also consistent with CAPEC-153 (Input Data Manipulation), in which an attacker controls the structure or flags of supplied data so that the target selects a different processing path or interprets the content differently than intended.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • vLLM: Scale-out disaggregated multimodal transport trusts caller-supplied featuresAlso CWE-20
  • vLLM: Loose `cache_salt` validation lets a single request kill EngineCore on LMCache-MP deployments — uncaught downstream `ValueError` denial of serviceAlso CWE-20
  • vLLM: Structured-output request errors escape the request boundary and terminate the shared EngineCore — engine-fatal denial of service (3 sites)Also CWE-20
  • Newell Brands DYMO ID document parsing failing file type extension authentication checkSame generic ecosystem
  • Newell Brands DYMO ID parent directory open to path traversal through improper spheres of controlSame generic ecosystem
  • Bake filesystem entitlement consent is skipped for certain secret and oci-layout definitionsSame generic ecosystem

Record context

Vulnerability class
Vulnerability
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-20
Source
CVE List V5
Source checked
Oct 6, 2026
References
2 linked sources
Open source record