Exploit catalog results

Showing 18 PoCs on this page

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/the-sanitizer-is-the-weapon-cve-2026-68749-cve-2026-68750-quadratic-dos-in-elixir-html-sanitize-ex

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-13
ExploitCVE-2026-68749CVE-2026-687504 files

7.6 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact is a proof-of-concept exploit for CVE-2026-68749 and CVE-2026-68750 in html_sanitize_ex. It contains an Elixir script (payload withheld) that generates malicious payloads and executes them against the vulnerable library functions (HtmlSanitizeEx.html5/1 and HtmlSanitizeEx.basic_html/1) to trigger quadratic CPU exhaustion, measuring and reporting the resulting timing differences.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of a README and a PoC script (payload withheld) that demonstrate two quadratic-complexity denial-of-service vulnerabilities in the html_sanitize_ex library. The code generates benign and malicious HTML payloads, times their processing by the vulnerable library, and prints the timing ratio. No backdoor, concealed harm, or deceptive behavior is present. The script only calls the vulnerable library functions locally and prints results; it does not establish persistence, exfiltrate data, or execute unrelated commands.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesElixirMarkdown
Target softwarehtml_sanitize_ex
Attack typesDenial of Service (CPU Exhaustion)
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact includes executable code (payload withheld) that actively calls the vulnerable functions with crafted malicious inputs to trigger the described vulnerabilities, which is the definition of an exploit. The payload withheld describes it as a 'PoC' and provides instructions to run it, confirming its purpose is to exercise the vulnerability.

poc.exs:1-76README.md:1-3README.md:22-29

Requirements

  • Elixir >= 1.14 and internet connection to fetch the vulnerable html_sanitize_ex 1.5.2 dependency.README.md:24
  • The vulnerable version of html_sanitize_ex (1.5.2) must be installed via mix deps.get.README.md:27

Observed behavior

  • Generates a benign CSS payload and a malicious CSS payload (differing by a single ':') and calls HtmlSanitizeEx.html5/1 on both, measuring execution time to demonstrate the quadratic regex backtracking (CVE-2026-68749).poc.exs:18-25poc.exs:42-52
  • Generates payloads of 2,000 and 20,000 sibling HTML elements and calls HtmlSanitizeEx.basic_html/1 on both, measuring execution time to demonstrate the quadratic traversal (CVE-2026-68750).poc.exs:31-33poc.exs:54-62
  • Prints the measured timings and the ratio of attack time to benign time, showing the super-linear performance degradation.poc.exs:48-51poc.exs:58-61
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

File
Payload withheldThe main PoC script that generates payloads and measures execution time of the vulnerable library.poc.exs:1-76
File
Payload withheldDocumentation explaining the vulnerabilities, reproduction steps, and expected results.README.md:1-93
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • One binary file (.gitignore) was flagged but not analyzed; it is 39 bytes and unlikely to contain executable code.
  • Two text files (mix.exs and .gitignore) are reported in the inventory but their content is not included in the evidence packet, so their exact contents cannot be verified.
  • One binary file (.gitignore, 39 bytes) was not inspected; its small size and non-executable context make it unlikely to contain harmful logic.
  • Two text files (mix.exs and .gitignore) were omitted from the text content but their metadata is present; mix.exs is expected to contain dependency pinning as described in the README.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/two-dots-and-a-slash-cve-2026-18907-tecno-hi-browser-download-path-traversal

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-11
ScannerCVE-2026-189074 files

13.9 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact demonstrates the root cause of CVE-2026-18907 by serving a malicious HTTP response with a path-traversal filename and providing a client that reproduces the vulnerable join pattern. It does not exploit the actual TECNO Hi Browser APK; it validates the vulnerability class and shows how to detect the escape.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The repository contains a proof-of-concept for CVE-2026-18907, a path-traversal vulnerability in TECNO Hi Browser. The three text files (README.md, evil_server.py, naive_downloader.py) demonstrate the delivery of a malicious HTTP response with '../' in the Content-Disposition filename and a naive downloader that reproduces the vulnerable path-join pattern. No backdoor, concealed executable behavior, or operator-directed harm is present. The code is transparent, well-documented, and serves only to illustrate the vulnerability and its fix.

ClassificationScanner
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwareTECNO Hi Browser
Attack typesPath Traversal
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact does not include or interact with the actual vulnerable TECNO Hi Browser APK. It provides a standalone server and a client that reproduces the vulnerable pattern to demonstrate and detect the path-traversal class, which is characteristic of a scanner.

README.md:18-21naive_downloader.py:3-9

Requirements

  • A vulnerable browser or download manager that trusts the Content-Disposition filename without sanitization.README.md:5-10
  • The malicious server (evil_server.py) must be reachable by the client.evil_server.py:17-18

Observed behavior

  • evil_server.py serves an HTTP response with a Content-Disposition header containing '../' sequences in the filename.evil_server.py:39-44
  • naive_downloader.py fetches the response, extracts the filename, and writes the body to a path constructed by joining the download directory with the unsanitized filename, causing the file to be written outside the intended directory.naive_downloader.py:52-54naive_downloader.py:97-101
  • The script reports whether the file escaped the download directory, confirming the vulnerability class.naive_downloader.py:101-104
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Payload
Payload withheldThe payload written by the PoC server is a benign marker string used to demonstrate the file-write primitive.evil_server.py:26
Network Behavior
Payload withheldThe server is the delivery mechanism for the path-traversal payload; it does not establish persistence, exfiltrate data, or accept commands.evil_server.py:34-55
File Write
Payload withheldThe naive_downloader.py script writes the payload to a path that may escape the download directory, demonstrating the vulnerability. This is the intended PoC behavior.naive_downloader.py:96-104
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence does not include the proprietary com.talpa.hibrowser APK, so the artifact cannot demonstrate exploitation of the actual vulnerable application.
  • One file (LICENSE) is omitted from the text evidence, but it is unlikely to contain behavior-bearing code.
  • One file (LICENSE) was present in the repository metadata but not included as text; it is a standard license file and not executable.
  • The review is limited to the supplied text evidence; no dynamic analysis or execution was performed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/go-without-bounds-cve-2026-67822-stack-overflow-in-tenda-w6-s-wifissidset

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-07
ExploitCVE-2026-678224 files

19.5 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact contains a confirmed denial-of-service exploit (poc_dos.py) that triggers a stack-based buffer overflow in Tenda W6-S firmware by sending an oversized 'GO' parameter to payload withheld, causing the httpd service to crash. It also includes a conceptual remote code execution skeleton (exploit_conceptual.py) that demonstrates control-flow hijack by overwriting the saved return address, though it lacks working shellcode or gadget addresses.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The repository contains a PoC for CVE-2026-67822, a stack-based buffer overflow in Tenda W6-S. The supplied text files (README.md, poc_dos.py, exploit_conceptual.py) demonstrate a denial-of-service exploit and a conceptual RCE skeleton. No backdoor, trojan, or deceptive payload targeting the person running the PoC was observed. The code performs only the advertised vulnerability demonstration: sending an oversized HTTP parameter to crash the target service, and providing a helper to calculate offsets for control-flow hijack. It does not contain concealed credential theft, persistence mechanisms, unrelated remote access, or any other operator-directed harm.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPythonC
Target softwareTenda W6-S firmware v1.0.0.4(510)/bin/httpd (GoAhead-derived web server)
Attack typesstack-based buffer overflowdenial of serviceremote code execution (conceptual)
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The primary artifact is classified as exploit because poc_dos.py actively exercises the vulnerability by sending a malicious payload that triggers the stack overflow and crashes the target service, which is confirmed by the code's behavior of re-probing to verify the crash. The README explicitly labels it as a 'Confirmed DoS reproducer' and the code includes logic to send the oversized parameter and confirm the resulting denial of service.

poc_dos.py:1-6poc_dos.py:46-53poc_dos.py:92-100README.md:35

Requirements

  • Network access to the Tenda W6-S management interface (default http://payload withheld)poc_dos.py:46-48
  • Target device must be running vulnerable firmware v1.0.0.4(510)README.md:22-23

Observed behavior

  • Sends an HTTP POST request to payload withheld with an oversized 'GO' parameter (default 2000 bytes of 'A') to overflow a 64-byte stack bufferpoc_dos.py:46-53
  • Detects successful denial of service by re-probing the management interface and confirming httpd is no longer respondingpoc_dos.py:92-100
  • Provides a conceptual RCE skeleton that constructs a payload to overwrite the saved return address ($ra) on the stack, demonstrating control-flow hijack shapeexploit_conceptual.py:92-104
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Url
Payload withheldVulnerable endpoint targeted by the PoC scripts.poc_dos.py:30exploit_conceptual.py:35
Ip Address
Payload withheldDefault LAN IP of the Tenda W6-S device, used as example target in documentation and scripts.README.md:43poc_dos.py:67
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • One file (fake_apmib.c) is omitted from the text evidence; its content is not available for analysis.
  • The exploit_conceptual.py file is explicitly labeled as conceptual and does not contain working shellcode, ROP chains, or real gadget addresses, so the RCE capability is not fully implemented.
  • The analysis is based solely on static code review; the code was not executed, and its effectiveness against a real target is not verified.
  • One file (fake_apmib.c) was omitted from the text evidence and was not reviewed. Its metadata indicates it is a C source file for an LD_PRELOAD shim used in emulation, which is consistent with the repository's stated purpose, but its content was not inspected.
  • The review is limited to static analysis of the provided text; no dynamic execution or binary analysis was performed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/one-multiply-too-many-cve-2026-70638-llama-cpp-android-jni-integer-overflow

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-07
ScannerCVE-2026-706384 files

12.7 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact demonstrates and validates the integer overflow vulnerability CVE-2026-70638 without performing the actual heap corruption or code execution. It includes a safe arithmetic demonstrator (overflow_demo.c), a model metadata generator (craft_gguf.py), and a Frida hook for live observation (hook_new_batch.js). None of these components execute the vulnerable allocation or write out-of-bounds; they only prove the wrapping arithmetic and show how attacker-controlled values reach the vulnerable code.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The repository contains a proof-of-concept (PoC) for CVE-2026-70638, an integer overflow vulnerability in llama.cpp's Android JNI wrapper. All four text files (README.md, overflow_demo.c, craft_gguf.py, hook_new_batch.js) describe, demonstrate, or instrument the vulnerability. No file contains concealed executable behavior, persistence mechanisms, credential theft, unrelated payloads, or operator-directed harm. The PoC is consistent with its stated educational and research purpose.

ClassificationScanner
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesCPythonJavaScript
Target softwarellama.cppLLaMA-Android JNI wrapper
Attack typesInteger OverflowHeap-based Buffer Overflow
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact's primary purpose is to detect, validate, and report the integer overflow vulnerability. It does not contain code that exercises the vulnerability to achieve heap corruption or code execution. The README explicitly states that overflow_demo.c performs no out-of-bounds write and craft_gguf.py produces a non-runnable model, confirming the artifact is a scanner/demonstrator, not an exploit.

README.md:28-29README.md:64-67overflow_demo.c:8-11

Requirements

  • Attacker must provide a crafted n_seq_max, n_tokens, or embd value through a malicious model file or JNI call.README.md:12-14
  • The target must be a 32-bit ABI (armeabi-v7a) for heap corruption; 64-bit ABIs result in a large allocation failure (DoS).README.md:60-63

Observed behavior

  • overflow_demo.c computes the malloc size using the same arithmetic as the vulnerable code and prints the wrapped result on 32-bit vs 64-bit size_t, without performing any allocation or write.overflow_demo.c:33-47
  • craft_gguf.py generates a minimal GGUF file with an attacker-controlled llama.embedding_length metadata value, demonstrating the model-file delivery vector, but produces a non-runnable model with no tensors.craft_gguf.py:12-15
  • hook_new_batch.js intercepts the vulnerable JNI function to log and optionally override the multiplicands, enabling observation of the overflow path on a live device without triggering the corruption.hook_new_batch.js:53-66
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Vulnerability Demonstration
Payload withheldThe file only prints allocation sizes to prove the integer overflow; it does not trigger heap corruption.overflow_demo.c:8-11
Model File Generation
Payload withheldThe script demonstrates the model-file delivery vector for the vulnerability but produces a non-runnable model with no tensors.craft_gguf.py:12-15
Dynamic Instrumentation
Payload withheldThe script logs and optionally overrides function arguments for research purposes; it does not perform any harmful action.hook_new_batch.js:2-3
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence does not include the actual vulnerable llama-android.cpp source code; only the PoC files are provided.
  • The artifact explicitly states it does not perform the corrupted write or produce a runnable malicious model, so the full exploit chain is not demonstrated.
  • The review covers only the four text files included in the evidence packet. No binary files were present or analyzed.
  • The PoC does not include a complete, runnable exploit; it only demonstrates the arithmetic overflow and a metadata delivery vector.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/e-is-for-exploit-cve-2026-17543-php-pgsql-sql-injection-backslash-breakout

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-06
ExploitCVE-2026-175434 files

8.4 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact is a PHP script (poc.php) that actively exploits CVE-2026-17543, a SQL injection vulnerability in PHP's ext/pgsql. It connects to a PostgreSQL database, sends crafted payloads via pg_select() and pg_insert() to break out of string literals, and demonstrates data exfiltration and privilege escalation.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of a README and a PHP PoC script for CVE-2026-17543. The script demonstrates the described SQL injection vulnerability using pg_select and pg_insert with crafted payloads. No backdoor, deceptive payload, or concealed operator-directed harm is present. The script's behavior is limited to connecting to a user-specified PostgreSQL database, creating a test table, and executing the documented exploit payloads to illustrate the vulnerability. The Dockerfile is flagged as binary and was not inspected, but its described purpose (pinning a vulnerable PHP image) aligns with the PoC's stated goal.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPHP
Target softwarePHP ext/pgsql
Attack typesSQL Injection
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact contains executable code (poc.php) that actively performs SQL injection attacks against a live database. It uses pg_select() and pg_insert() with malicious payloads to exfiltrate data and escalate privileges, which constitutes exploitation, not just detection or scanning.

poc.php:39-48poc.php:60-70

Requirements

  • A vulnerable PHP build (8.2 < 8.2.33, 8.3 < 8.3.33, 8.4 < 8.4.24, 8.5 < 8.5.9) with ext/pgsql enabled.README.md:27-32
  • A PostgreSQL database (9.1+) with standard_conforming_strings = on.README.md:107
  • Network access to the target PostgreSQL database.poc.php:16

Observed behavior

  • Connects to a PostgreSQL database using credentials from environment or defaults.poc.php:16-17
  • Creates a 'users' table and inserts two rows.poc.php:31-33
  • Executes a pg_select() with a crafted payload to perform data exfiltration via SQL injection, returning all rows instead of a specific match.poc.php:39-48
  • Executes a pg_insert() with a crafted payload to perform privilege escalation, forcing the 'admin' column to true.poc.php:60-70
  • Prints the generated SQL statements to show the E'...' backslash breakout.poc.php:44poc.php:65
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Network Connection
Payload withheldThe script connects to a PostgreSQL database specified by the PGCONN environment variable or a hardcoded default. This is necessary for the PoC to demonstrate the SQL injection.poc.php:16-17
Sql Execution
Payload withheldThe script sets up a test schema to demonstrate the vulnerability. This is destructive only to the 'users' table in the connected database, which is expected behavior for a PoC.poc.php:31-33
Exploit Payload
Payload withheldThese are the documented SQL injection payloads used to demonstrate data exfiltration and privilege escalation. They are the core of the PoC and match the CVE description.poc.php:39poc.php:60
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • One binary file (Dockerfile) was flagged as extensionless executable and not analyzed; its content is unavailable.
  • Two text files (docker-compose.yml and Dockerfile) are reported in metadata but their content is not included in the evidence packet.
  • The Dockerfile is reported as a binary file and was not inspected. Its described purpose is to pin a vulnerable PHP image, which aligns with the PoC, but its actual content could not be verified.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/pgadmin-ai-assistant-sql-injection-cve-2026-17351-lexer-differential-bypass

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-07-31
ExploitCVE-2026-173513 files

17.5 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

PoC exploit for CVE-2026-17351, a SQL injection bypass in pgAdmin 4's AI Assistant. The code demonstrates a lexer differential between sqlparse and PostgreSQL to smuggle a COMMIT and CREATE TABLE past a read-only transaction guard. It executes the payload against a live PostgreSQL instance, verifies the table was created, and then demonstrates the fix.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The PoC demonstrates a legitimate CVE-2026-17351 exploit: a lexer differential between sqlparse and PostgreSQL that bypasses a read-only transaction guard. The code connects to a user-supplied PostgreSQL instance, executes the documented payload, and verifies the bypass and its fix. No concealed operator-directed harm, credential theft, persistence, or unrelated payload is present.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationRequired
Languagespython
Target softwarepgAdmin 4PostgreSQL
Attack typessql injectionlexer differentialprompt injection
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact contains code that actively exercises the vulnerability by executing a crafted SQL payload against a live PostgreSQL database to bypass a read-only transaction guard and create a table, which constitutes exploitation.

poc.py:130-143

Requirements

  • Requires a running PostgreSQL instance with valid credentials.poc.py:15-21
  • Requires psycopg and sqlparse Python libraries.poc.py:13

Observed behavior

  • Validates the payload using a replicated pgAdmin 9.16 sqlparse-based validator, which incorrectly classifies the multi-statement payload as a single SELECT.poc.py:104-112
  • Connects to PostgreSQL, executes the payload via the simple query protocol inside a BEGIN TRANSACTION READ ONLY block, and checks if the smuggled CREATE TABLE succeeded.poc.py:118-157
  • Demonstrates the fix by connecting with prepare_threshold=0 and showing that the extended query protocol rejects the multi-statement payload.poc.py:164-181
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Payload
Payload withheldThe documented SQL injection payload that exploits the lexer differential.poc.py:48
Network Connection
Payload withheldThe PoC connects to a PostgreSQL instance specified by the user to demonstrate the vulnerability.poc.py:121poc.py:206-210
File Operation
Payload withheldThe PoC creates and drops a table named 'pwn' on the target database to demonstrate the bypass.poc.py:126poc.py:133poc.py:157
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence packet does not include the file prompt_injection_demo.py, which is referenced in the README.
  • The analysis is based solely on the provided text files; the code was not executed.
  • One file (prompt_injection_demo.py) was omitted from the evidence packet and not reviewed. Its absence limits completeness but does not indicate a backdoor in the reviewed files.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/siyuan-mcp-admin-takeover-cve-2026-66012-missing-authorization

Repository PoCStars: 1Created 2026-07-26
ExploitCVE-2026-660122 files

13.5 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A Python exploit for CVE-2026-66012 that chains an unauthenticated MCP handshake, credential exfiltration from payload withheld, malicious plugin planting for RCE, and admin session escalation against vulnerable SiYuan instances.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The PoC consists of a README and a Python exploit script that demonstrate the documented CVE-2026-66012 attack chain. The script performs an MCP handshake, reads payload withheld, writes a plugin to the workspace, and attempts admin login using stolen credentials. All actions are consistent with the described vulnerability and target the specified SiYuan instance. No concealed executable behavior, unrelated payloads, persistence mechanisms, or operator-directed harm beyond the stated exploit were observed.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence100%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagespython
Target softwareSiYuan
Attack typesremote code executionprivilege escalationcredential exfiltration
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact contains a complete Python script (exploit.py) that actively exercises the vulnerability by sending crafted requests to perform unauthorized actions (credential theft, file write, admin login). The README explicitly labels it as a 'Proof of Concept' and 'Full exploit'.

exploit.py:1-32README.md:3README.md:40

Requirements

  • Target SiYuan instance with Publish server enabled in anonymous mode (Conf.Publish.Enable=true, Conf.Publish.Auth.Enable=false).README.md:22
  • Python 3.8+ with requests library.README.md:33-34

Observed behavior

  • Performs an MCP initialize handshake to obtain a session ID without authentication.exploit.py:79-102
  • Reads payload withheld via the MCP file tool to extract accessAuthCode, api.token, and cookieKey.exploit.py:105-140
  • Writes a malicious plugin (plugin.json and index.js) to data/plugins/pwn/ that executes an arbitrary shell command on next desktop launch.exploit.py:143-185
  • Uses the stolen accessAuthCode to authenticate on the admin port (6806) and obtain an administrator session token.exploit.py:188-214
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Network Target
Payload withheldThe exploit targets the SiYuan Publish port as described in the CVE.exploit.py:68
Credential Exfiltration
Payload withheldThe script reads the SiYuan configuration file to extract accessAuthCode, api.token, and cookieKey, matching the documented attack chain.exploit.py:105-140
File Write
Payload withheldThe script writes a malicious plugin to the SiYuan workspace for RCE on next desktop launch, as described in the CVE.exploit.py:143-185
Admin Escalation
Payload withheldThe script uses the stolen accessAuthCode to authenticate on the admin port, consistent with the documented attack chain.exploit.py:188-214
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Only the two text files (README.md and exploit.py) were reviewed; no binary files were present in the artifact.
  • The review does not assess the safety of the exploit when executed against a real target, only whether the PoC itself contains backdoor behavior.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/zephyr-lwm2m-firmware-update-oob-read-cve-2026-10672-truncated-package-uri

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-07-18
Not analyzedCVE-2026-106723 files
GitHub

Hunt-Benito/samsung-bixby-command-execution-cve-2026-21055-improper-component-export

Repository PoCStars: 1Created 2026-07-12
ExploitCVE-2026-210553 files

17.4 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact contains a Python script (exploit.py) that crafts and sends a broadcast Intent via adb to a vulnerable Bixby component to execute arbitrary commands with Bixby's privileges. It also includes a scanner script (analyze_components.py) for identifying exported components, but the primary artifact is the exploit.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of a README and a Python script (exploit.py) that demonstrate a local privilege escalation PoC for CVE-2026-21055. The script uses adb to send a broadcast Intent to a Samsung Bixby component, which is the documented exploit behavior. No concealed executable payload, credential theft, persistence mechanism, or unrelated remote access is present. The code is straightforward and performs only the advertised vulnerability demonstration.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwareSamsung Bixby
Attack typescommand executionprivilege escalation
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The script exploit.py is explicitly designed to send a crafted Intent to execute arbitrary commands on a vulnerable Bixby instance, which constitutes an exploit. The README.md describes it as a 'PoC exploit' and details the attack steps.

exploit.py:2-7README.md:11

Requirements

  • adb installed and a Samsung device connected with USB debugging enabledexploit.py:16-18
  • Bixby version < 4.0.70.8 on the target deviceexploit.py:17

Observed behavior

  • Sends a broadcast Intent to Bixby's exported command receiver to execute a shell commandexploit.py:108-114
  • Reads the command output from a file on the device to confirm executionexploit.py:124-127
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Command Execution
Payload withheldThe exploit sends a broadcast Intent to a Bixby component to execute a user-supplied command. This is the documented CVE-2026-21055 attack vector.exploit.py:108-114
File Write
Payload withheldThe exploit writes command output to a world-writable temporary file and reads it back. This is part of the PoC demonstration.exploit.py:34exploit.py:124-128
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The analyze_components.py script is referenced but its source code is not included in the evidence.
  • The exploit relies on adb, which simulates a local malicious app but requires developer-level device access.
  • One unclassified file (5057 bytes) was present in the artifact but not analyzed; its content and potential behavior are unknown.
  • The review is limited to static analysis of the provided text; no dynamic execution or network behavior was observed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/llama-factory-webui-rce-cve-2026-58116-trust-remote-code-model-path-injection

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-07-02
ExploitCVE-2026-581165 files

8.7 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact is a proof-of-concept exploit for CVE-2026-58116. It provides a malicious model repository (poc-model/) containing a configuration file (configuration_poc.py) with a payload that executes arbitrary Python code when loaded with trust_remote_code=True. The README.md describes the vulnerability and provides instructions to verify the sink locally and to deploy the exploit against a running LLaMA-Factory WebUI instance.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The PoC demonstrates the claimed CVE-2026-58116 vulnerability by providing a model configuration that executes a harmless host reconnaissance command when loaded with trust_remote_code=True. The payload in configuration_poc.py runs os.system("id") and prints system information, which is consistent with the described exploit mechanism and does not exhibit concealed, deceptive, or operator-directed harm beyond the stated vulnerability demonstration.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence98%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwareLLaMA-Factory
Attack typesRemote Code ExecutionCode Injection
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact contains functional code (configuration_poc.py) designed to be executed by a vulnerable application to achieve remote code execution. The README explicitly labels it as a 'Proof of concept' and provides deployment instructions, including uploading the malicious model to Hugging Face Hub and triggering it via the WebUI. This constitutes an exploit.

README.md:1-4README.md:74-83poc-model/configuration_poc.py:27-46

Requirements

  • Access to a LLaMA-Factory WebUI instance (version <= 0.9.5) or a local transformers environment for sink verification.README.md:3-4README.md:50-56
  • The ability to supply a malicious model path to the WebUI or to run the provided build_and_verify.py script.README.md:76-83

Observed behavior

  • The PoCConfig class in configuration_poc.py executes a payload (execute_payload()) upon instantiation, which runs the 'id' command via subprocess and prints host information.poc-model/configuration_poc.py:27-38poc-model/configuration_poc.py:41-46
  • The README describes the expected output of the exploit, showing the payload banner and the output of the 'id' command.README.md:60-72
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Payload Behavior
Payload withheldThe payload in configuration_poc.py is a harmless demonstration that prints system information and runs the 'id' command, consistent with the educational purpose stated in the README.poc-model/configuration_poc.py:27-38
Exploit Mechanism
Payload withheldThe PoC relies on the documented vulnerability where LLaMA-Factory hardcodes trust_remote_code=True, allowing the transformers library to execute code from a malicious model repository. This is the exact mechanism described in CVE-2026-58116.README.md:6-11poc-model/configuration_poc.py:1-16
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence packet does not include the contents of build_and_verify.py, config.json, or __init__.py, which are referenced in the README and file inventory. Their absence limits full verification of the exploit assembly process.
  • The evidence packet reports complete_artifact_coverage is false, indicating that not all files from the repository snapshot are included.
  • Two files (config.json and __init__.py) are listed in the inventory but their content was not provided; however, their expected content is described in the README and is consistent with the PoC mechanism.
  • The review is limited to the supplied text evidence; no binary analysis was performed, though no binary files were identified.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/traefik-stripprefix-auth-bypass-cve-2026-48020-path-normalization

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-06-27
ScannerCVE-2026-480206 files

10.7 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact is a Python script (poc.py) that sends HTTP GET requests with crafted paths to a Traefik instance and checks the response status and body to determine if a path normalization vulnerability is present. It does not exploit the vulnerability to perform any action beyond detection; it only reports whether protected paths were reached without authentication.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of a README and a Python PoC script for CVE-2026-48020. The README documents the vulnerability and reproduction steps. The PoC script sends HTTP requests with path traversal payloads to a local Traefik instance to demonstrate the authentication bypass. No backdoor, concealed executable behavior, or operator-directed harm is present in the reviewed text. The script performs only the advertised vulnerability demonstration against a user-supplied target.

ClassificationScanner
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwareTraefik
Attack typesAuthentication BypassPath Traversal
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The primary artifact, poc.py, sends crafted requests and inspects responses to determine if a vulnerability exists. It does not perform any post-exploitation actions, exfiltrate data, or establish persistence; it only reports whether the target is vulnerable. This is consistent with a scanner.

poc.py:1-85

Requirements

  • A running Traefik instance with a specific configuration (public router with StripPrefix middleware and a protected router with basicAuth) must be accessible.README.md:38-40

Observed behavior

  • Sends unauthenticated HTTP GET requests to paths like /api../admin and /api%2e%2e/admin.poc.py:27-28
  • Checks if the response status is 200 and the body contains a secret string, indicating a successful bypass.poc.py:56-60
  • Prints a confirmation message if any protected path was reached without credentials.poc.py:76-78
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Network Target
Payload withheldThe PoC script sends HTTP requests to this default local address to demonstrate the CVE. The target is user-configurable via command-line argument.poc.py:18
Vulnerability Demonstration
Payload withheldThe script sends crafted requests (e.g., /api../admin) to a Traefik instance to show that protected paths can be reached without credentials. This is the stated purpose of the PoC.poc.py:27-32
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence packet reports one uninspected binary file (.gitignore) and four text files without content, but the two provided text files (README.md and poc.py) are complete and sufficient for classification.
  • One binary file (.gitignore, 19 bytes) was flagged as extensionless executable but not analyzed. Its small size and lack of reference in the reviewed code make it unlikely to be a backdoor, but it was not inspected.
  • Four additional text files (docker-compose.yml, dynamic.yml, backend.py, .gitignore) were present in the artifact but not included in the evidence packet. Their content could not be reviewed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/ash-authentication-oauth2-oidc-account-takeover-cve-2026-49757-email-based-user-matching

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-06-21
ExploitCVE-2026-497574 files

29.9 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

Python script that simulates the vulnerable and patched OAuth2/OIDC callback handlers in AshAuthentication to demonstrate an account takeover via email-based user matching (CVE-2026-49757). The script exercises the vulnerability by creating a victim account, then logging in as the attacker via a different OAuth provider using the victim's email, resulting in a session for the victim's account.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of a README and a Python PoC script that demonstrate the CVE-2026-49757 vulnerability and its fix. The script simulates OAuth2/OIDC callback handlers to illustrate email-based account takeover and the corrected (strategy, sub) matching. No backdoor, concealed executable behavior, or operator-directed harm is present. The code is transparent, educational, and performs only the described vulnerability demonstration.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagespython
Target softwareash_authentication
Attack typesauthentication bypassaccount takeover
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The script is named exploit.py, described as a 'Proof of Concept', and its primary function is to exercise the vulnerability by simulating an OAuth callback that results in the attacker obtaining a session for the victim's account. It includes code that directly demonstrates the account takeover (lines 105-112) and is intended to be executed to show the vulnerability.

exploit.py:1-3exploit.py:105-112README.md:1-3

Requirements

  • Victim's email addressexploit.py:50
  • Attacker controls an account on any accepted OAuth provider with the victim's emailexploit.py:74-79

Observed behavior

  • Registers a local victim user with admin roleexploit.py:49-54
  • Simulates an attacker OAuth callback with the victim's email but a different sub and email_verified=falseexploit.py:88-93
  • Checks if the returned session user_id matches the victim's user_id, indicating account takeoverexploit.py:105-112
  • Demonstrates fixed handlers that block the attack using (strategy, sub) matching and email verification policiesexploit.py:120-300
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Vulnerability Demonstration
Payload withheldThe script simulates vulnerable and fixed authentication handlers to illustrate the security flaw and its remediation.exploit.py:37-117exploit.py:120-175
Educational Content
Payload withheldThe code is clearly documented for educational purposes, with no hidden or obfuscated logic.exploit.py:1-20README.md:1-94
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The vulnerable_handler.py module is not included in the evidence, so the exact implementation of VulnerableAuthHandler and FixedAuthHandler is unknown.
  • The script simulates the vulnerable logic locally; it does not demonstrate the attack against a live instance of AshAuthentication.
  • Two additional text files (vulnerable_handler.py and possibly another) are present in the repository but their content was not included in the evidence packet; only metadata was provided. The analysis covers only the supplied README.md and exploit.py.
  • The evidence packet flags two unclassified binary files (14252 bytes) that were not analyzed; their content is unknown.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/glinet-beryl-ax-triple-rce-cve-2026-11450-11451-11452-unauthenticated-root-on-travel-router

Repository PoCStars: 1Created 2026-06-13
ExploitCVE-2026-114502 files

6.5 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

Python script that sends crafted HTTP POST requests to the /cgi-bin/glc endpoint of a GL.iNet GL-MT3000 router to achieve unauthenticated remote command execution via three distinct command injection vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-11450, CVE-2026-11451, CVE-2026-11452).

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The PoC contains two readable text files: a README and a Python script (poc.py). The script sends crafted JSON payloads to the /cgi-bin/glc endpoint of a target router to exploit three documented CVEs. All network calls are directed to the user-supplied target; no unrelated remote access, persistence, credential exfiltration, or concealed payload delivery is present. The code performs only the advertised command injection demonstrations.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence100%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwareGL.iNet GL-MT3000 firmware
Attack typescommand injection
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The Python script constructs and sends malicious payloads to a vulnerable endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on the target device. The README explicitly describes it as a 'PoC' that 'exploits three unauthenticated command injection vulnerabilities', and the code contains functions named 'exploit_cve_*' that deliver command injection payloads.

README.md:3poc.py:6-7poc.py:43-45

Requirements

  • Network access to the router's LAN IPREADME.md:35
  • Python 3.6+README.md:34
  • For CVE-2026-11452, a NAS user must exist on the targetpoc.py:83-85

Observed behavior

  • Sends a JSON-RPC-like POST request to /cgi-bin/glc with method 'eject_disk_do1' and a crafted dev_name containing a command substitution payload to exploit a buffer size mismatch (CVE-2026-11450)poc.py:43-55
  • Sends a JSON-RPC-like POST request to /cgi-bin/glc with method 'set_proto_config' and a crafted media_dir containing a single-quote escape and injected command (CVE-2026-11451)poc.py:57-68
  • Sends a JSON-RPC-like POST request to /cgi-bin/glc with method 'set_user_pwd' and a crafted password containing a command substitution payload inside double-quoted printf (CVE-2026-11452)poc.py:70-100
  • Executes an attacker-supplied shell command on the target and writes output to a remote filepoc.py:45poc.py:58poc.py:90
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Network Target
Payload withheldAll HTTP requests are sent to the target specified by the user; no hardcoded or secondary exfiltration endpoint exists.poc.py:28-30poc.py:102-104
Command Execution
Payload withheldThe script constructs command injection payloads using the user-provided command and output path, consistent with the stated PoC purpose.poc.py:43-45poc.py:57-58poc.py:90-92
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Evidence is limited to the supplied README.md and poc.py files; no network traffic captures or target execution output are included to confirm successful exploitation.
  • Only the two text files (README.md, poc.py) were reviewed; no other files exist in the artifact.
  • The review does not assess whether the exploit techniques are effective or safe to execute.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/mediatek-wlan-heap-overflow-cve-2026-20452-filogic-router-rce

Repository PoCStars: 3Created 2026-06-06
ExploitCVE-2026-204523 files

7.8 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A Python script (exploit.py) that crafts and injects malformed 802.11 QoS Data frames with oversized Information Elements (IEs) via a monitor-mode Wi-Fi adapter to trigger a heap-based buffer overflow in MediaTek WLAN AP drivers.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The repository contains a proof-of-concept exploit for CVE-2026-20452. The Python script (exploit.py) crafts and injects malformed 802.11 frames to trigger a heap overflow in a MediaTek WLAN AP driver. No backdoor, deceptive payload, or concealed operator-directed harm was observed. The code performs only the advertised exploit behavior.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence98%
AuthenticationRequired
LanguagesPython
Target softwareMediaTek WLAN AP driver
Attack typesHeap OverflowRemote Code Execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact contains a complete, executable Python script (exploit.py) that actively crafts and injects malicious network frames designed to trigger a heap buffer overflow. The README explicitly labels it as a 'Proof of concept exploit' and provides usage instructions for running it against a target. The code's primary purpose is to exercise the vulnerability, not merely detect it.

README.md:1-3exploit.py:1-11exploit.py:142-155

Requirements

  • Python 3.7+ with scapy library installedREADME.md:22-23exploit.py:29-37
  • Linux with a Wi-Fi adapter supporting monitor and injection modeREADME.md:24
  • Attacker must be an associated client on the target Wi-Fi network (adjacent network access)README.md:11
  • Target AP BSSID and attacker MAC address must be knownexploit.py:112-114

Observed behavior

  • Constructs an 802.11 QoS Data frame (type=2, subtype=8) with a malformed Information Element payloadexploit.py:52-59exploit.py:61-80
  • Injects the crafted frames via a specified monitor-mode interface using scapy's sendp functionexploit.py:150-151
  • Supports multiple IE overflow variants: Vendor Specific (221), Chained IEs, HT Capabilities (45), Extended Capabilities (127)exploit.py:61-80
  • Allows configurable overflow size, number of injected frames, and inter-frame delayexploit.py:115-118
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Exploit Behavior
Payload withheldThis is the normal, advertised behavior of the PoC and does not constitute a backdoor.exploit.py:43-86exploit.py:142-155
Network Activity
Payload withheldThe network activity is limited to the exploit's stated purpose of injecting malformed frames to the target AP.exploit.py:150-152
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence does not include any binary payloads, shellcode, or post-exploitation stages; the exploit's effectiveness in achieving code execution is not verified.
  • The analysis is based solely on static review of the provided source code; the code was not executed.
  • Only the supplied text files (README.md, exploit.py, requirements.txt) were reviewed. No binary files were present or analyzed.
  • The review does not assess the safety or legality of using the exploit against real systems.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/lwip-snmpv3-stack-overflow-cve-2026-8836-critical-embedded-rce

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-31
ExploitCVE-2026-88363 files

9.1 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

Python script that constructs and sends a malicious SNMPv3 packet with an oversized msgAuthenticationParameters field to trigger a stack-based buffer overflow in lwIP's SNMPv3 USM handler (CVE-2026-8836).

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The PoC constructs and sends SNMPv3 packets with an oversized msgAuthenticationParameters field to trigger the described CVE-2026-8836 stack buffer overflow. No backdoor, concealed operator-directed harm, or unrelated payload delivery was observed in the reviewed text.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwarelwIP
Attack typesStack-based Buffer Overflow
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a Python script that actively constructs and sends a malicious network packet designed to overflow a buffer on a target system. The README and script header explicitly describe it as a 'Proof of concept exploit' and 'exploit' that 'constructs a valid SNMPv3 message with an oversized msgAuthenticationParameters' to trigger a stack-based buffer overflow. The code includes network transmission logic (send_packet function) and is intended to cause a crash or execute a payload, which is the definition of an exploit.

README.md:3exploit.py:3exploit.py:155-159README.md:39

Requirements

  • Target must be running lwIP <= 2.2.1 with LWIP_SNMP_V3 enabled and listening on the specified UDP port (default 161).README.md:12
  • Attacker must have network connectivity to the target's SNMP port.exploit.py:155-159

Observed behavior

  • Constructs an SNMPv3 message with a USM security parameters sequence containing an oversized octet string for msgAuthenticationParameters.exploit.py:111-129
  • Sends the crafted SNMPv3 packet to the target over UDP.exploit.py:155-159
  • Supports sending multiple packets with configurable delay and loading a custom payload from a file.exploit.py:191-201
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Network Behavior
Payload withheldThis is the expected behavior of a PoC exploit for the described vulnerability.exploit.py:155-165exploit.py:225-235
Payload Handling
Payload withheldThis allows a user to supply custom shellcode or data for the overflow, which is standard for exploit PoCs and does not constitute a backdoor.exploit.py:187-190exploit.py:206-214exploit.py:114-120
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The file requirements.txt is listed as selected but its content is unavailable, so any dependencies beyond the Python standard library are unknown.
  • The evidence does not include the vulnerable lwIP source code or a test environment, so the exploit's effectiveness cannot be verified from the provided files alone.
  • One text file (requirements.txt) was not included in the evidence; its content is unknown but is typically a non-executable dependency list.
  • The review is limited to the supplied text; no dynamic analysis or binary inspection was performed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/copy-fail-cve-2026-31431-linux-kernel-page-cache-lpe

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-09
ScannerCVE-2026-314312 files

6.6 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A Python script that checks a Linux system for vulnerability to CVE-2026-31431 by verifying AF_ALG socket availability and binding to the 'authencesn' AEAD template. It does not perform any write or exploit action.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The artifact is a Python vulnerability checker and a README for CVE-2026-31431. The Python script checks for the presence of the vulnerability by creating an AF_ALG socket and binding to the authencesn template; it does not perform any exploitation, write to files, establish persistence, or execute hidden commands. The README describes the vulnerability and links to an external real PoC. No backdoor, trojan, or deceptive behavior is observed in the supplied text.

ClassificationScanner
Model confidence98%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwareLinux kernel
Attack typeslocal privilege escalation
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The script explicitly states it 'checks vulnerability status only' and 'does NOT exploit the vulnerability'. Its code only validates the presence of the vulnerable kernel interface (AF_ALG, authencesn template) and prints a status; it contains no code to perform the page-cache write or escalate privileges.

README.md:15cve_2026_31431_check.py:137-138cve_2026_31431_check.py:59-109

Requirements

  • Python 3.10+ for os.splice supportREADME.md:25
  • Linux kernel with AF_ALG supportREADME.md:26
  • Unprivileged user accountREADME.md:27

Observed behavior

  • Creates an AF_ALG socket and attempts to bind to the 'authencesn(hmac(sha256),cbc(aes))' AEAD templatecve_2026_31431_check.py:62-69
  • Sets a key on the socket and attempts to accept a request socketcve_2026_31431_check.py:76-95
  • Checks for the existence of the target file /usr/bin/sucve_2026_31431_check.py:99-101
  • Prints a vulnerability status message and a conceptual description of the attack flow without executing any write primitivecve_2026_31431_check.py:105-132
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Url
Payload withheldExternal link to the real PoC, referenced in README and script comments.README.md:21cve_2026_31431_check.py:10
Url
Payload withheldExternal article link in README and script output.README.md:11cve_2026_31431_check.py:162
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The artifact is a vulnerability checker, not an exploit; it does not contain the shellcode payload or the splice-based write primitive described in the conceptual flow.
  • Only the two text files (README.md and cve_2026_31431_check.py) were reviewed; no other files exist in the artifact.
  • The script references an external real PoC at payload withheld, which was not reviewed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/cve-2026-41200-stig-manager-oidc-reflected-xss

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-02
ExploitCVE-2026-412002 files

6.3 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

Python script that generates a malicious OIDC callback URL containing a reflected XSS payload. The payload exploits an innerHTML injection in STIG Manager to steal access tokens via a SharedWorker or exfiltrate cookies.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The PoC is a straightforward script that generates a malicious URL exploiting the described CVE-2026-41200 reflected XSS. It constructs payloads that, when rendered by a vulnerable STIG Manager instance, would exfiltrate tokens or cookies to an attacker-controlled host. The code contains no concealed, deceptive, or unrelated harmful behavior; it operates exactly as documented for a conceptual proof-of-concept.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagespython
Target softwarestig-manager
Attack typescross-site scripting (xss)credential theft
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The Python script generates a URL containing a crafted XSS payload designed to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser, steal access tokens, and exfiltrate data. This is code intended to exercise a vulnerability, not merely detect it.

cve-2026-41200-poc.py:29-50cve-2026-41200-poc.py:58-64

Requirements

  • Victim must visit the crafted malicious URL while having an active STIG Manager session in another browser tab for the SharedWorker token theft mode.README.md:9
  • Attacker must control or know the STIG Manager callback URL and optionally the API and exfiltration hosts.cve-2026-41200-poc.py:72-86

Observed behavior

  • Constructs a URL with an 'error_description' query parameter containing a JavaScript payload that, when rendered by the vulnerable application, creates a SharedWorker to steal an access token and exfiltrate it along with collection data to an attacker-controlled host.cve-2026-41200-poc.py:29-50
  • Provides a simple mode that injects a script tag to exfiltrate the victim's cookies.cve-2026-41200-poc.py:53-55
  • Outputs the malicious URL in plain, curl, or HTML phishing link formats.cve-2026-41200-poc.py:120-129
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Exfiltration Endpoint
Payload withheldThe sharedworker payload sends stolen tokens and collection data to an attacker-specified exfiltration host.cve-2026-41200-poc.py:38-42
Exfiltration Endpoint
Payload withheldThe sharedworker payload fallback sends document cookies to an attacker-specified host.cve-2026-41200-poc.py:48
Exfiltration Endpoint
Payload withheldThe simple payload sends document cookies to an attacker-specified host.cve-2026-41200-poc.py:54
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The script is described as 'conceptual' and may not function without a properly configured listener on the exfiltration host.
  • The evidence does not include the SharedWorker script (/worker.js) that the payload attempts to instantiate.
  • Only the two text files (README.md and cve-2026-41200-poc.py) were reviewed; no other files were present in the artifact.
  • The review does not assess the safety or correctness of the PoC when used against a real target, only whether the artifact itself contains backdoor behavior.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

GitHub

Hunt-Benito/samsung-exynos-sms-stack-overflow-cve-2025-54328-critical-zero-click-baseband-rce

Repository PoCStars: 1Created 2026-04-10
ExploitCVE-2025-543282 files

4.7 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

Generates a malicious SMS RP-DATA message with an oversized TPDU payload designed to overflow a stack buffer in Samsung Exynos baseband firmware.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The PoC consists of a README and a Python script that generates a malformed SMS RP-DATA message to trigger a stack buffer overflow. The script constructs a standard RP-DATA structure with an oversized TPDU payload and writes it to a file. No backdoor, deceptive payload, or concealed harmful behavior is present. The code is straightforward and does not perform any network communication, file exfiltration, persistence, or execution of external commands.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPython
Target softwareSamsung Exynos baseband firmware
Attack typesStack-based Buffer Overflow
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The Python script's primary purpose is to generate a payload that triggers a stack-based buffer overflow, which is the definition of exploit code. The README explicitly states it 'Generates a raw RP-DATA message... that would trigger a stack-based buffer overflow'.

README.md:15poc_cve_2025_54328.py:6-8

Requirements

  • Requires a method to inject the generated RP-DATA message into the target baseband, such as a fake BTS with SDR, an SMS gateway with raw PDU mode, or direct memory injection via JTAG/UART.README.md:25-28poc_cve_2025_54328.py:107-110

Observed behavior

  • Constructs an RP-DATA message with a 200-byte 'A' pattern in the TP-UD field, exceeding the expected buffer size to overwrite the stack.poc_cve_2025_54328.py:54-57
  • Saves the crafted malicious message to a binary file for later injection.poc_cve_2025_54328.py:102-105
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

File Write
Payload withheldThe script writes the generated malicious RP-DATA message to a local file for later injection. This is expected behavior for a PoC that generates a payload.poc_cve_2025_54328.py:102-104
Command Line Argument
Payload withheldThe script accepts an optional payload withheld as a command-line argument, which is used to construct the destination address in the RP-DATA message. This is a standard parameter for a PoC of this type.poc_cve_2025_54328.py:73-76
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The artifact is self-described as a 'conceptual PoC' and will not exploit a production device without specific memory layout and firmware gadget addresses for the target baseband version.
  • The generated payload is a simple pattern of 'A' characters and does not include a crafted return address or shellcode.
  • The review is limited to the supplied text files; no binary files were present or analyzed.
  • The PoC is conceptual and does not include the actual exploit delivery mechanism, which would require external hardware or software not provided in this artifact.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.