Exploit catalog results

Showing 13 PoCs on this page

GitHub

Dungsocool/CVE-2026-64638

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-08
ExploitCVE-2026-6463833 files

4.1 MiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact contains a Python script (exploit.py) that serves a phishing page and a JavaScript payload. The JavaScript payload, when executed in an admin's browser via the reflected XSS vulnerability, automatically creates a new administrator account on the target WordPress site. This is a full exploit chain implementation.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of a README.md documenting a reflected XSS vulnerability (CVE-2026-64638) in WordPress and an exploit.py script that demonstrates the attack chain. The exploit.py script implements a phishing server that delivers a JavaScript payload to create a backdoor administrator account on a targeted WordPress site. This behavior is consistent with the described exploit chain (XSS → DOM clobbering → admin account creation) and targets the stated vulnerable software. No concealed, unrelated, or operator-directed harmful behavior beyond the normal exploit demonstration was observed.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPythonJavaScriptHTML
Target softwareWordPress
Attack typesCross-Site Scripting (XSS)DOM ClobberingAccount Takeover
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact includes a functional Python script (exploit.py) that implements a multi-stage attack chain. It serves a phishing page to trigger a reflected XSS vulnerability, uses DOM clobbering to load a second-stage JavaScript payload, and that payload automatically creates a new administrator account on the target. This is code intended to exercise a vulnerability for account takeover, which is the definition of an exploit.

wp-src/exploit.py:1-168

Requirements

  • A WordPress site vulnerable to CVE-2026-64638 (versions prior to 7.0.3).README.md:5
  • An administrator of the target site must be tricked into clicking a link to the attacker's phishing page.README.md:13

Observed behavior

  • The exploit.py script starts an HTTP server that serves a phishing page (/phish.html) and a malicious JavaScript file (/evil.js).wp-src/exploit.py:98-126
  • The phishing page contains a hidden form that auto-submits a POST request to the target's /wp-login.php with a crafted username containing a DOM clobbering payload.wp-src/exploit.py:64-96
  • The DOM clobbering payload injects a <div> element that overwrites the legitimate emoji settings, causing the browser to load the attacker's evil.js script.wp-src/exploit.py:66-76
  • The evil.js script, running in the admin's browser context, fetches a nonce from the WordPress admin panel and then sends a POST request to create a new administrator account named 'backdoor_xss2shell'.wp-src/exploit.py:19-62
  • The script sends a callback to the attacker's server upon successful creation of the backdoor admin account.wp-src/exploit.py:55-60
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Exploit Behavior
Payload withheldThis is the normal exploit behavior for the described CVE-2026-64638 vulnerability, targeting the stated WordPress login XSS. It does not indicate a backdoor against the person running the PoC.wp-src/exploit.py:19-62wp-src/exploit.py:64-96wp-src/exploit.py:105-126
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence packet reports complete_artifact_coverage as false, indicating that not all files from the repository were included. The analysis is based on the two provided text files (README.md and exploit.py).
  • The README.md file mentions that the bypass of the sanitize_user() function was simulated in a lab by commenting it out, and the specific bypass technique discovered by the pwn.ai team was not publicly released. The provided exploit code may not work against a fully patched or unmodified vulnerable version without this bypass.
  • Only the two selected text files (README.md and wp-src/exploit.py) were provided for review; 18 other text files and 13 non-text files in the repository were omitted from the evidence packet.
  • Binary files were flagged as metadata-only and not analyzed; their content is unknown.
  • The review is limited to static analysis of the provided source code; 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

Dungsocool/CVE-2023-6553

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-05
ExploitCVE-2023-6553CVE-2026-60137CVE-2026-63030330 files

4.8 MiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact is a detailed technical writeup for CVE-2023-6553 that includes a fully functional exploit. The README.md provides step-by-step instructions and curl commands to achieve unauthenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the Backup Migration WordPress plugin by sending a crafted POST request with a malicious 'Content-Dir' header to trigger a file inclusion vulnerability in backup-heart.php.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied text files consist of a vulnerability write-up (README.md) and source code for a WordPress plugin (Backup Migration) and an analytics SDK (Analyst). The README describes a legitimate file inclusion vulnerability (CVE-2023-6553) and provides a proof-of-concept exploit. The source code files are standard plugin components: an autoloader, SDK resolver, main plugin file, and uninstaller. No evidence of concealed executable behavior, credential theft, persistence mechanisms, or unrelated payloads was observed in the reviewed text.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence98%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPHPShellMarkdown
Target softwareBackup Migration WordPress Plugin (backup-backup)
Attack typesRemote Code ExecutionFile Inclusion
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The README.md contains explicit, executable curl commands that, when sent to a vulnerable server, trigger the file inclusion vulnerability to achieve Remote Code Execution. This is code intended to exercise a vulnerability, meeting the definition of an exploit.

README.md:253-274README.md:244-246

Requirements

  • A PHP file must be placed on the target server at a path predictable from the Content-Dir header, such as /tmp/bmi/includes/bypasser.php.README.md:239-247
  • The target must be running a vulnerable version of the Backup Migration plugin (<= 1.3.7).README.md:5

Observed behavior

  • Sends a single POST request to /wp-content/plugins/backup-backup/includes/backup-heart.php with a crafted Content-Dir header pointing to an attacker-controlled directory.README.md:253-274
  • The server includes and executes the attacker's PHP file (bypasser.php) located in the specified directory, resulting in arbitrary command execution.README.md:244-246README.md:280
  • Demonstrates impact by reading wp-config.php database credentials and gathering system information (uname, hostname).README.md:287-289README.md:307-309
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Vulnerability Writeup
Payload withheldThe write-up is a standard security research document explaining the vulnerability and demonstrating exploitation for educational purposes. It does not contain instructions for backdooring the reader's system.README.md:1-375
Source Code
Payload withheldThe file defines constants, includes required files, and initializes the plugin. It does not contain any obfuscated or suspicious code.wp-src/backup-backup.php:1-69
Source Code
Payload withheldThese files are a standard third-party analytics library for WordPress plugins. They handle SDK version resolution and account registration. No backdoor behavior is present.wp-src/analyst/autoload.php:1-40wp-src/analyst/main.php:1-36wp-src/analyst/sdk_resolver.php:1-79
Source Code
Payload withheldThe file deletes backup files and configuration based on user settings. It is a standard uninstall routine.wp-src/uninstall.php:1-70
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence packet contains one binary archive (CVE20276553.zip) that was not analyzed; its contents are unknown.
  • The analysis is based on the selected text files; 245 other files in the repository were not inspected.
  • One binary file (CVE20276553.zip, 1.3 MB) was flagged as BINARY and not analyzed. Its contents are unknown.
  • Only 8 of 330 files in the repository were included as text; the remaining 322 files (including 76 non-text media files) were not reviewed.
  • The review is limited to static analysis of the supplied text; no dynamic execution or behavioral 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

Dungsocool/CVE-2025-7384

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-08-01
Model review verdict: Suspicious behavior.WriteupCVE-2025-738419 files

1.6 MiB

AnalysisSuspicious behaviordeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A detailed technical writeup analyzing CVE-2025-7384, a PHP Object Injection vulnerability in the 'Database for Contact Form 7' WordPress plugin. The document provides root cause analysis, attack chain description, and step-by-step reproduction instructions, but does not contain executable exploit or scanner code.

Backdoor review

Suspicious behavior

The PoC documentation describes a legitimate PHP Object Injection exploit against the stated target plugin. However, the final RCE stage instructs the operator to upload a webshell from a supplied ZIP file (`payload withheld` or `system-monitor.zip`). This ZIP is present in the repository as an uninspected binary, and its behavior is not disclosed in the readable text. The operator is directed to install and activate this opaque plugin on a compromised host, which creates a material concern about concealed, operator-directed harmful behavior.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdownphpbash
Target softwareWordPressDatabase for Contact Form 7 plugin (contact-form-entries)
Attack typesPHP Object InjectionRemote Code ExecutionArbitrary File Deletion
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a technical report (writeup) that explains the vulnerability, its root cause, and a reproduction process. It does not provide any standalone executable code to exploit or scan for the vulnerability; the described steps require manual interaction and external tools (Docker, a webshell ZIP). The content is purely analytical and instructional.

CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:1-394

Requirements

  • Target must run WordPress with the vulnerable 'contact-form-entries' plugin (≤ 1.4.3) and Contact Form 7.CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:3
  • A POP chain (e.g., a class with a __destruct() method calling unlink()) must be available in the environment.CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:29

Observed behavior

  • Describes how an unauthenticated attacker can inject a serialized PHP object via a Contact Form 7 form field.CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:199-203
  • Explains that the payload is stored in the database and deserialized via maybe_unserialize() when an admin views the entry.CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:86-96
  • Outlines a multi-stage attack chain culminating in arbitrary file deletion and remote code execution via WordPress reinstallation.CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:193-232
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Flagged behaviors

Concealed Executable Behavior
  • The PoC instructs the operator to upload and activate a webshell plugin from a supplied ZIP file (`payload withheld` or `system-monitor.zip`). The ZIP is flagged as an uninspected binary, and its internal code is not disclosed in the reviewed text. The operator is directed to execute this opaque payload on a target system without any inspection of its behavior.CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:312-316

Observables

Binary Artifact
Payload withheldSupplied ZIP file intended to be uploaded as a WordPress plugin webshell. Its contents are uninspected, and the PoC text does not reveal its internal code.CVE-2025-7384_Report_EN.md:312
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The artifact contains references to binary files (e.g., payload withheld) and images that were not analyzed, but the text content is complete.
  • The analysis is based solely on the supplied text; no code was executed to verify the described behavior.
  • The `payload withheld` binary is uninspected; its internal code and any hidden behavior are not reviewed.
  • Only two text files from the repository were provided; other files, including potential plugin source code, were omitted.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2026-8206

Repository PoCStars: 1Created 2026-07-28
WriteupCVE-2026-820614 files

2.2 MiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact is a detailed technical writeup describing payload withheld, an unauthenticated account takeover vulnerability in the Kirki Customizer Framework WordPress plugin. It explains the root cause, attack chain, and remediation, but contains no executable exploit or scanner code.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of two Markdown reports describing payload withheld, a vulnerability in the Kirki WordPress plugin. The reports explain the vulnerability, provide example HTTP requests and PHP code snippets, and outline an attack chain. No backdoor, concealed executable behavior, or deceptive payload targeting the reader is present. The content is purely informational documentation of a known CVE.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdownphphttpbashjson
Target softwareKirki Customizer FrameworkWordPress
Attack typesaccount takeoverprivilege escalationremote code execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a technical report (writeup) that analyzes the vulnerability, provides code snippets for illustration, and describes an attack chain. It does not contain a functional exploit script or a scanner; the HTTP request shown is a static example within a narrative, not executable code.

CVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:1-320README.md:1-329

Requirements

  • Kirki Customizer Framework 6.0.0–6.0.6 is activatedCVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:28
  • REST API is public (WordPress default)CVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:29
  • ComponentLibrary module is active (default when the plugin is active)CVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:30

Observed behavior

  • Describes sending a POST request to the kirki-forgot-password endpoint with a victim's username and attacker's email to hijack a password reset link.CVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:179-185
  • Explains the root cause: the handle_forgot_password function does not validate that the provided email matches the user's registered email.CVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:55-78
  • Outlines a full attack chain from password reset hijacking to admin login and webshell upload for RCE.CVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:111-118
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Vulnerability Documentation
Payload withheldThe artifact documents a privilege escalation vulnerability in the Kirki plugin, including example exploit steps and remediation advice.CVE-2026-8206_Report_EN.md:1-320README.md:1-329
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • complete_artifact_coverage is false; only 2 of 14 files were provided as text. The remaining 12 files (including 8 non-text media files and 4 text files without content) were not analyzed.
  • The provided text files are Markdown reports; no executable code (e.g., Python, JavaScript) was present in the analyzed content.
  • Only the two selected text files (payload withheld_Report_EN.md and README.md) were reviewed. Four additional text files and eight non-text media files were present in the repository but not included in the evidence packet.
  • Binary files were flagged as metadata-only and 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

Dungsocool/CVE-2026-60137_CVE-2026-63030

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-07-27
ExploitCVE-2026-60137CVE-2026-6303016 files

2.3 MiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact is an automated exploit script (exploit.py) and supporting documentation (README.md) for CVE-2026-60137 and CVE-2026-63030. The exploit chains REST Batch Route Confusion to bypass authentication and then performs SQL injection to extract admin credentials, logs in, uploads a webshell, and achieves remote code execution on vulnerable WordPress instances.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The repository contains a documented proof-of-concept exploit for CVE-2026-60137 and CVE-2026-63030 targeting WordPress. The exploit chain (route confusion, SQL injection, admin login, webshell upload, RCE) is fully disclosed in the README and implemented in exploit.py. All actions are directed at the operator-supplied target URL. No concealed, unrelated, or operator-harmful behavior was found. The code does not exfiltrate data to a third party, establish unauthorized persistence on the operator's machine, or contain any materially misrepresented functionality.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence100%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPythonMarkdown
Target softwareWordPress
Attack typesSQL InjectionAuthentication BypassRemote Code Execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact contains a complete, automated Python script (exploit.py) that exercises the described vulnerabilities to achieve remote code execution. The script implements all phases of the attack chain: route confusion, SQL injection, login, webshell upload, and command execution. The README.md provides a detailed technical analysis and instructions for running the exploit. This is clearly code intended to exploit the vulnerabilities, not merely detect or analyze them.

exploit.py:1-449README.md:1-809

Requirements

  • Target must be running a vulnerable WordPress version (6.9.0-6.9.4 or 7.0.0-7.0.1) with the REST API enabled (default).README.md:7README.md:112-115exploit.py:13
  • The target must have at least one published post (default 'Hello World' exists).README.md:120
  • The attacker must be able to send HTTP requests to the target's REST API batch endpoint.exploit.py:45-48

Observed behavior

  • Sends a batch request with a malformed path ('///') to trigger route confusion and bypass authentication.exploit.py:54-88README.md:326-339
  • Performs boolean-based blind SQL injection via the 'author_exclude' parameter to extract the admin username and password hash from the database.exploit.py:94-202README.md:341-361
  • Attempts to log in to the WordPress admin panel using a list of common passwords.exploit.py:208-244README.md:363-367
  • Uploads a malicious PHP webshell as a WordPress plugin and activates it.exploit.py:250-333README.md:369-376
  • Executes arbitrary operating system commands on the target server via the uploaded webshell.exploit.py:339-346README.md:378-383
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Target Url
Payload withheldAll HTTP requests in exploit.py are sent to the target URL provided by the operator via command-line argument.exploit.py:391-397
Webshell Token
Payload withheldThe webshell uploaded to the target uses a hardcoded token for access control. This is a standard practice in PoC exploits to prevent unauthorized use of the shell on the target.exploit.py:31
Exploit Chain
Payload withheldThe entire exploit chain is explicitly described in the README and implemented in exploit.py, targeting the operator-specified WordPress instance.README.md:9-11exploit.py:1-5
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence packet includes only the README.md and exploit.py files; 14 other files (including images and a docker-compose.yml) are omitted from the text content.
  • The analysis is based solely on static review of the provided source code; the code was not executed, and its effectiveness or safety is not verified.
  • 13 non-text media files and 1 unclassified file in the repository were not inspected; they are not referenced or executed by the reviewed exploit code.
  • The review does not assess the validity of the CVE claims or the exploit's effectiveness against a real target.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2014-3120

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-31
WriteupCVE-2014-312010 files

400.1 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A detailed technical writeup analyzing and exploiting CVE-2014-3120 in Elasticsearch 1.1.1. The document describes the target environment, verifies the vulnerability, constructs an MVEL-based RCE payload, and demonstrates post-exploitation information gathering. It contains no executable exploit or scanner code, only curl commands and analysis.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence is a single README.md file containing a lab write-up for exploiting CVE-2014-3120 against a local Elasticsearch 1.1.1 instance. The document describes reconnaissance, verification of dynamic scripting, and construction of an RCE payload using MVEL expressions. All described actions are consistent with normal exploitation of the stated CVE against the stated target. No concealed executable behavior, deceptive payloads, or operator-directed harm beyond the documented exploit are present.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdownbashjson
Target softwareElasticsearch
Attack typesremote code execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a detailed technical analysis and walkthrough of exploiting CVE-2014-3120. It describes the vulnerability, the target environment, and the steps to achieve RCE, but it does not provide any standalone executable code. The curl commands are illustrative examples within the narrative, not a functional exploit or scanner script. The analysis_routing classification is 'NO_POC_CODE_IDENTIFIED'.

README.md:1-431README.md:1

Requirements

  • Target must be running Elasticsearch version prior to 1.2 with dynamic scripting enabled.README.md:81
  • The Elasticsearch REST API must be accessible without authentication.README.md:66

Observed behavior

  • Sends a search request with a harmless MVEL script ('1+1') to confirm dynamic scripting is active.README.md:149-163
  • Sends a search request with a malicious MVEL script that executes the 'id' command via Java's Runtime.exec() and returns the output in the JSON response.README.md:202-218
  • Sends a search request with a malicious MVEL script that reads the '/etc/shadow' file and returns its contents.README.md:253-269
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Target Ip
Payload withheldIP address of the target Elasticsearch instance used in the lab write-up.README.md:29
Target Port
Payload withheldElasticsearch HTTP REST API port targeted in the exploit.README.md:48
Exploit Payload
Payload withheldMVEL payload used to achieve remote code execution via Elasticsearch dynamic scripting.README.md:214
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The evidence packet contains only the README.md file; 9 other non-text media files (images) are omitted, which may contain additional context.
  • The analysis is based on a lab environment and may not represent all real-world configurations.
  • Only the README.md text file was reviewed; 9 non-text media files (images) were omitted from the evidence and not inspected.
  • The review does not verify the accuracy or safety of the described exploit steps.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2018-7600

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-30
WriteupCVE-2018-76008 files

648.1 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A technical writeup documenting the analysis and exploitation of CVE-2018-7600 (Drupalgeddon2) against a Drupal 8.5.0 target. The document describes system fingerprinting, verification of vulnerable version, assessment of the installer state, and a workaround to install Drupal with SQLite to enable the vulnerable endpoint. It includes a curl command demonstrating RCE via the Form API and analyzes the response confirming code execution as www-data.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence is a single README.md file containing a lab write-up for exploiting CVE-2018-7600 (Drupalgeddon2). The text describes reconnaissance, version fingerprinting, installer-state analysis, and a final curl command that achieves RCE via the Drupal Form API. No backdoor, deceptive payload, or concealed operator-directed harm is present in the reviewed content. The artifact is a documentation-only repository with no executable PoC code.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdownshell
Target softwareDrupal
Attack typesremote code execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a README.md file containing a detailed technical narrative of vulnerability analysis and exploitation steps, including commands and their output. It does not contain executable exploit or scanner code; it is a documentation writeup.

README.md:1-214

Requirements

  • Target must be running a vulnerable version of Drupal (e.g., 8.5.0) without the CVE-2018-7600 patch.README.md:44-54
  • A Drupal endpoint using the Form API (e.g., /user/register) must be accessible and not redirect to the installer.README.md:120-128

Observed behavior

  • The document describes using curl to send a crafted POST request to /user/register with render array injection payloads, resulting in the execution of the 'id' command on the server and returning the output 'uid=33(www-data)'.README.md:164-175
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Exploit Command
Payload withheldThis is the documented exploit payload targeting the stated CVE-2018-7600 vulnerability. It uses the standard render array injection technique to execute 'id' on the target Drupal instance. The command is consistent with normal PoC behavior for this CVE and does not exhibit backdoor characteristics.README.md:165-168
Target Ip
Payload withheldInternal lab IP address used as the target for the documented exploit. This is a private RFC 1918 address typical of lab environments and does not indicate exfiltration or malicious intent.README.md:27
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Only one text file (README.md) was provided; 7 non-text media files (images) were omitted, so visual content referenced in the writeup is unavailable.
  • The artifact is a static document; no code was executed to verify the described behavior.
  • Seven non-text media files (images) totaling 651,106 bytes were present in the repository but were not analyzed. They are referenced as screenshots in the README and are unlikely to contain executable code, but their content was not reviewed.
  • The repository contains no executable source code, scripts, or binaries; the review is limited to the documentation text.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2017-12635_36

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-29
WriteupCVE-2017-126357 files

295.9 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A technical writeup documenting the step-by-step exploitation of CVE-2017-12635 (privilege escalation) and CVE-2017-12636 (remote code execution) against Apache CouchDB 1.6.0. It describes the attack surface, authentication bypass via duplicate JSON keys, and subsequent RCE through query server configuration injection, including curl commands and verification steps.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence is a single README.md file that documents a lab exercise demonstrating the CVE-2017-12635 and CVE-2017-12636 exploit chain against Apache CouchDB. The file contains only explanatory text, curl commands, and screenshots describing the legitimate exploitation process. No backdoor, deceptive payload, or concealed harmful behavior targeting the reader was observed.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdown
Target softwareApache CouchDB
Attack typesprivilege escalationremote code execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a detailed technical analysis and walkthrough of exploiting CVE-2017-12635 and CVE-2017-12636. It contains no executable code, only documentation and curl command examples. The analysis_routing classification is NO_POC_CODE_IDENTIFIED, and the content is a writeup describing the exploitation process.

README.md:1-189

Requirements

  • Target running Apache CouchDB 1.6.0 with HTTP API exposed on port 5984README.md:27-29

Observed behavior

  • Sends a PUT request to /_users with duplicate 'roles' keys to create an admin userREADME.md:54-64
  • Modifies query_servers configuration via /_config to inject an OS commandREADME.md:109-113
  • Creates a design document with a view using the injected query server language to trigger command executionREADME.md:119-137
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Command
Payload withheldDemonstrates the CVE-2017-12635 privilege escalation exploit by creating a user with duplicate 'roles' keys.README.md:55-63
Command
Payload withheldDemonstrates the CVE-2017-12636 remote code execution exploit by registering a malicious query server.README.md:110-112
Command
Payload withheldVerification step to confirm the RCE payload executed inside the Docker container.README.md:151
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • The artifact is a single README.md file containing a writeup; no executable exploit or scanner code is present.
  • The analysis_routing classification is NO_POC_CODE_IDENTIFIED, confirming the absence of PoC code.
  • Six non-text media files (images) are present but not analyzed, potentially containing additional visual evidence.
  • Only the README.md text file was reviewed; 6 non-text media files (images) were flagged as metadata-only and not analyzed. These images are referenced in the document as screenshots of command output and are unlikely to contain executable backdoor behavior, but their content was not inspected.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2017-18349

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-29
WriteupCVE-2017-183498 files

447.6 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A detailed technical writeup analyzing and exploiting CVE-2017-18349, a Fastjson 1.2.24 deserialization vulnerability, in a lab environment. The document describes system analysis, fingerprinting, exploitation chain verification, and provides Java exploit code and commands, but the artifact itself is a README.md documentation file, not executable exploit or scanner code.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence is a single README.md file that documents a penetration testing walkthrough for CVE-2017-18349 (Fastjson deserialization). It describes reconnaissance, fingerprinting, and exploitation steps using standard tools and payloads against a lab target. No backdoor, deceptive payload, or concealed operator-directed harm targeting the reader was observed in the reviewed text.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdownjavabash
Target softwarefastjsonpippo
Attack typesdeserialization of untrusted dataremote code execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a README.md file containing a step-by-step technical analysis, exploitation walkthrough, and risk assessment for CVE-2017-18349. It includes code snippets (Java, bash) and commands but is a documentation writeup, not a standalone executable exploit or scanner.

README.md:1-290

Requirements

  • Target must be running Fastjson version 1.2.24 or earlier with AutoType enabled.README.md:78-80
  • Target JVM must allow remote codebase loading via JNDI (e.g., Java 8u102).README.md:96-98
  • Attacker must control an LDAP server and HTTP server to serve the malicious class.README.md:186-189

Observed behavior

  • Sends a crafted JSON POST request with @type set to com.sun.rowset.JdbcRowSetImpl and dataSourceName pointing to attacker's LDAP server.README.md:228-231
  • Victim JVM performs JNDI lookup to attacker's LDAP server, downloads and executes a malicious class, resulting in a reverse shell.README.md:154-160
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Ip Address
Payload withheldTarget victim IP address used in the documented lab exploitation scenario.README.md:22
Ip Address
Payload withheldAttacker-controlled IP address used for reverse shell and JNDI/LDAP callback in the documented lab exploitation scenario.README.md:172
Url
Payload withheldJNDI LDAP endpoint generated by the attacker's tool to trigger remote class loading in the documented lab exploitation scenario.README.md:212
Command
Payload withheldReverse shell payload embedded in the Java Exploit class used in the documented lab exploitation scenario.README.md:172
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Only one text file (README.md) was provided; 7 non-text media files (images) were omitted, which may contain additional visual evidence.
  • The artifact is a lab report/writeup, not the original exploit or scanner code; the described exploit code is embedded within the documentation.
  • Seven non-text media files (images) totaling 441,240 bytes were present in the repository but were not analyzed; their content could not be reviewed.
  • The review covers only the supplied evidence packet; no other files or commits in the repository were inspected.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2019-20933

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-28
ExploitCVE-2019-2093313 files

552.4 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact contains a Python script (payload withheld) that generates a forged JWT signed with an empty secret to bypass authentication in InfluxDB versions vulnerable to CVE-2019-20933, and sends authenticated queries to the target. The accompanying README.md provides a detailed walkthrough of exploiting this vulnerability against a lab target, including manual JWT crafting and post-exploitation actions.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence consists of a README.md walkthrough and an payload withheld script that both demonstrate exploitation of CVE-2019-20933, an authentication bypass in InfluxDB. The Python script generates a JWT signed with an empty secret and sends it to the target to execute queries. No concealed, deceptive, or operator-directed harmful behavior beyond the stated exploit was observed. The script performs only the actions described in the README: JWT generation and authenticated API queries.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence100%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPythonMarkdown
Target softwareInfluxDB
Attack typesauthentication bypassJWT forgery
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The file payload withheld is a standalone script that actively generates a malicious JWT and sends it to a target InfluxDB instance to execute arbitrary queries, which constitutes exploitation code. The README.md documents the same exploitation steps manually. Both artifacts are designed to exercise the CVE-2019-20933 vulnerability, not merely detect it.

exploit_influxdb.py:1-82README.md:150-241

Requirements

  • Target InfluxDB version < 1.7.6 with JWT authentication enabled and empty shared-secretREADME.md:69exploit_influxdb.py:28-29
  • Network access to the InfluxDB HTTP API (default port 8086)exploit_influxdb.py:38-40

Observed behavior

  • Generates a JWT with header {'alg':'HS256','typ':'JWT'} and payload containing a username (default 'admin') and a far-future expiration, signed with an empty HMAC-SHA256 key.exploit_influxdb.py:15-35
  • Sends an HTTP GET request to the /query endpoint with the forged JWT in the Authorization: Bearer header and a user-supplied InfluxQL query.exploit_influxdb.py:37-45
  • Prints the JSON response from the server if the query succeeds, indicating successful authentication bypass and data retrieval.exploit_influxdb.py:75-77
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Exploit Script
Payload withheldPython script that generates a forged JWT with an empty secret and sends queries to an InfluxDB instance to exploit CVE-2019-20933.exploit_influxdb.py:1-82
Jwt Generation
Payload withheldThe script explicitly uses an empty byte string as the HMAC key to exploit the CVE-2019-20933 vulnerability.exploit_influxdb.py:28-29
Target Interaction
Payload withheldThe script sends the forged JWT to the target InfluxDB API to execute arbitrary queries, consistent with the documented exploit.exploit_influxdb.py:37-45
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Evidence includes only two text files from a repository with 13 total files; 11 non-text media files (images) are present but not analyzed, which may contain additional context.
  • The analysis is based solely on static code review; the exploit code was not executed, and its effectiveness against a live target is not verified.
  • 11 non-text files (images, etc.) totaling 545,612 bytes were present in the repository but were not analyzed per the evidence envelope's binary policy (FLAGGED_METADATA_ONLY_NOT_ANALYZED). Their content could not be inspected.
  • Only the two text files (README.md and payload withheld) were included in the review; other repository files were omitted from the evidence packet.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2017-11610

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-27
ExploitCVE-2017-1161016 files

741.0 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact contains a Python script (exploit_supervisor.py) that exploits CVE-2017-11610 in Supervisord by sending a crafted XML-RPC request to traverse object attributes and execute arbitrary system commands via os.system. A detailed writeup (README.md) documents the full exploitation process, including reconnaissance, namespace traversal confirmation, RCE payload construction, and post-exploitation information gathering.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The repository contains a documented proof-of-concept exploit for CVE-2017-11610 (Supervisor XML-RPC RCE) and a corresponding Python script. The README describes the vulnerability analysis and exploitation steps, and the script automates the same namespace traversal to os.system. No concealed backdoor, unrelated payload, persistence mechanism, or deceptive behavior targeting the person running the PoC was observed in the reviewed text files.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence98%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPythonShell
Target softwareSupervisord
Attack typesRemote Code ExecutionCommand Injection
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact includes a functional Python script (exploit_supervisor.py) that actively exploits CVE-2017-11610 by sending a malicious XML-RPC request to execute arbitrary commands on a vulnerable Supervisord instance. The accompanying writeup (README.md) provides a step-by-step exploitation guide and confirms successful RCE. This constitutes exploit code intended to exercise the vulnerability.

exploit_supervisor.py:4-24README.md:193-206

Requirements

  • Target must be running a vulnerable version of Supervisord (<= 3.3.2) with the XML-RPC interface exposed without authentication.README.md:53README.md:72

Observed behavior

  • The exploit script connects to the target's /RPC2 XML-RPC endpoint and sends a method call with a namespace traversal chain (payload withheld) to execute an arbitrary shell command.exploit_supervisor.py:10-16
  • The writeup demonstrates manual exploitation by sending crafted XML-RPC requests via curl, confirming RCE by writing the output of the 'id' command to /tmp/rce_proof.txt and verifying it inside the container.README.md:193-206
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Exploit Chain
Payload withheldThe documented and scripted attack chain traverses Supervisor's internal Python object attributes to reach os.system for command execution, consistent with the published CVE-2017-11610 vulnerability.README.md:109-111exploit_supervisor.py:13
Command Execution
Payload withheldThe README demonstrates executing the 'id' command via the XML-RPC exploit and verifying the output, proving remote code execution as the 'nobody' user.README.md:188-206
Script Behavior
Payload withheldThe Python script automates the documented exploit without any hidden or unrelated functionality; it only performs the advertised CVE-2017-11610 exploitation.exploit_supervisor.py:1-32
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Evidence coverage is limited to two selected text files (README.md and exploit_supervisor.py) out of 16 total files; 14 non-text media files (images) were not analyzed.
  • The analysis is based solely on static review of the provided text; the code was not executed, and its functionality is inferred from the source code and documentation.
  • 14 non-text media files (images) were present in the repository but were not analyzed; their content could theoretically contain hidden instructions or steganographic payloads, though this is unlikely for a PoC repository.
  • Only the two text files (README.md and exploit_supervisor.py) were reviewed; other repository files (e.g., configuration, Dockerfiles) were omitted from the evidence packet.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2017-10271

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-27
WriteupCVE-2017-1027110 files

768.5 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A detailed technical writeup analyzing CVE-2017-10271, a WebLogic XMLDecoder deserialization vulnerability. It describes system analysis, vulnerability mechanism, manual payload construction, and post-exploitation steps, but contains no executable exploit or scanner code.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence is a single README.md file containing a detailed educational writeup for exploiting CVE-2017-10271. It describes vulnerability analysis, manual payload construction, and post-exploitation steps. No concealed executable behavior, deceptive payloads, or operator-directed harm targeting the reader is present. The content is a standard proof-of-concept documentation.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence100%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdown
Target softwareOracle WebLogic Server
Attack typesdeserializationremote code execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a Markdown document providing a step-by-step technical analysis, explanation of the vulnerability, and manual exploitation methodology. It contains no executable code, scripts, or automated scanning logic. The analysis_routing classification is NO_POC_CODE_IDENTIFIED, and the content is purely descriptive.

README.md:1-291

Requirements

  • Target running Oracle WebLogic Server 10.3.6.0 with wls-wsat component enabledREADME.md:9-13
  • Network access to the WebLogic server on port 7001README.md:10

Observed behavior

  • Describes sending a crafted SOAP XML payload to /wls-wsat/CoordinatorPortType to achieve remote code execution via XMLDecoder deserializationREADME.md:159-191
  • Describes bypassing blind RCE by writing command output to a web-accessible directory and retrieving it via HTTPREADME.md:116-133
  • Describes post-exploitation activities including reading /etc/shadow and verifying root privilegesREADME.md:207-256
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Target Endpoint
Payload withheldThe documented exploit target endpoint for CVE-2017-10271.README.md:53
Exploit Payload
Payload withheldThe core exploit mechanism described in the writeup.README.md:159-183
Post Exploitation Action
Payload withheldDemonstrates post-exploitation data exfiltration technique.README.md:218-243
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Only the README.md text file was included; 9 non-text media files (images) were omitted, which may contain additional visual evidence not analyzed.
  • The artifact is a writeup describing exploitation steps; no executable code is present to confirm the described behavior.
  • Only the README.md file was provided as text evidence; 9 non-text media files (images) were omitted from analysis. The repository may contain other files not included in this packet.
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

Dungsocool/CVE-2017-5638

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-05-26
WriteupCVE-2017-563814 files

875.0 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

A detailed technical writeup analyzing CVE-2017-5638 (S2-045) in Apache Struts 2.3.30. It documents the process of identifying the vulnerable Jakarta multipart parser, confirming the affected version, verifying the error handling flow, and constructing an OGNL injection payload for remote code execution. The artifact includes a complete curl command demonstrating exploitation and discusses post-exploitation and remediation, but the primary content is explanatory analysis rather than standalone exploit or scanner code.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied evidence is a single README.md file that documents a step-by-step analysis and exploitation of CVE-2017-5638 (Apache Struts2 OGNL Injection). The text describes reconnaissance, version identification, payload construction, and post-exploitation steps, including a curl command that achieves RCE. No backdoor, deceptive payload, or concealed operator-directed harm targeting the person running the PoC is present. The content is a standard vulnerability write-up and does not contain instructions or code that would harm the reviewer.

ClassificationWriteup
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
Languagesmarkdownbash
Target softwareApache Struts 2
Attack typesognl injectionremote code execution
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact is a Markdown document that provides a step-by-step technical analysis of CVE-2017-5638, including environment reconnaissance, version identification, and behavioral verification. While it contains a complete exploit payload in a curl command, the document's primary purpose is to explain the vulnerability and the exploitation process, making it a writeup.

README.md:1-218

Requirements

  • Target must run Apache Struts 2.3.30 with Jakarta multipart parser and an upload endpoint.README.md:51-69

Observed behavior

  • Sends a crafted HTTP POST request with a malicious OGNL payload in the Content-Type header to achieve remote code execution.README.md:152-155
  • Executes the 'id' command on the target server and returns the output, confirming root-level access.README.md:157-159
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Exploit Payload
Payload withheldThe README provides a complete curl command (lines 152-155) that exploits CVE-2017-5638 against a vulnerable Struts2 instance. This is the documented exploit, not a backdoor.README.md:152-155
Target Endpoint
Payload withheldThe exploit targets a local IP address, consistent with a lab environment. No external or attacker-controlled infrastructure is referenced.README.md:152
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Only the README.md text file is included; 13 non-text media files (images) are omitted, so visual evidence referenced in the writeup is not available for review.
  • The artifact is a static document; no dynamic execution or verification of the described exploit was performed.
  • Only the README.md file was provided as text evidence; 13 non-text media files (images) were flagged as metadata-only and not analyzed. These images are referenced in the write-up but their content is not available for review.
  • The analysis scope confirms no executable source code was identified in the repository, so no backdoor could be hidden in code outside this file.
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.