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 79785 x anylabeling before 400 beta9 improper
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
High · CVSS 5.9CVE-2026-79785

X-AnyLabeling before 4.0.0-beta.9 Improper Certificate Validation in Model DownloadsCVE-2026-79785

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-79785 records a High severity (CVSS 5.9) vulnerability in X-AnyLabeling before 4.0.0-beta.9 Improper Certificate Validation in Model Downloads. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling (generic), CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling (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 25, 2026Updated Sep 24, 2026Source checked Oct 10, 2026First seen by HOL Aug 25, 2026Material review Sep 24, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Record context

Vulnerability class
Vulnerability
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-295
Source
CVE List V5
Source checked
Oct 10, 2026
References
6 linked sources
Open source record

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 5.9
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 5.9. 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 CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling (generic), CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
CVHub520/X-AnyLabelinggeneric>=0 <4.0.0-beta.94.0.0-beta.9
CVHub520/X-AnyLabelinggeneric>=0 <4.0.0b94.0.0b9

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling, CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling to 4.0.0-beta.9; CVHub520/X-AnyLabeling to 4.0.0b9 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Aug 25, 2026

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

    Sep 24, 2026

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

    Aug 25, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • Source referencepypi.org
  • Source referencevulncheck.com
Upstream source description

X-AnyLabeling's model downloader disabled TLS certificate verification. download_with_retry in anylabeling/services/auto_labeling/model.py built a context with ssl._create_unverified_context() and passed it to urllib.request.urlopen, so neither the certificate chain nor the hostname was checked on any model download, and models are fetched over HTTPS from the project's release host. Any party positioned to intercept that connection could therefore answer it with content of their own choosing. The response is written to a .part file and moved into place with os.replace, and the only post-download check, safe_check_model, validates the file's format rather than its provenance: no hash or signature is compared against an expected value. For an ONNX target the substituted file passes onnx.checker.check_model and is then used for inference, so the attacker chooses the model that produces the application's annotations. For a .pth or .pt target, which the shipped SAM2 video, YOLOE, UPN and open_vision configurations use, the check worker calls torch.load without weights_only, so a substituted file is unpickled and executes code of the attacker's choosing on PyTorch releases predating the weights_only default.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • MariaDB: `qc_info` plugin can do OOB reads if query contains \0Same generic ecosystem
  • MariaDB: mysql_json plugin OOB readsSame generic ecosystem
  • MariaDB: environment injection via wsrep bootstrap in the mariadb.service fileSame generic ecosystem
  • MariaDB Connector/C: libmariadb allowed cleartext password leakage on TLS hostname verification failureSame generic ecosystem
  • x64dbg-MCP Server vulnerable to pre-authentication denial of service through Content-Length integer overflowSame generic ecosystem
  • MariaDB: insufficient validation of binary frm data when opening a tableSame generic ecosystem