LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2026-85216: MISP LDAP and LinOTP Authentication Bypass via Empty or Invalid Credentials

MISP contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in its LDAP and LinOTP authentication components due to insufficient validation of user-supplied credentials. The custom LdapAuthenticate and LinOTPAuthenticate components replace CakePHP's FormAuthenticate implementation but did not replicate its credential validation checks. As a result, empty or non-string values could reach the underlying authentication mechanisms. In the LDAP authentication path, an attacker able to identify a valid directory user's email address could submit an empty password. The empty credential could be passed to ldap_bind(), where an LDAP server accepting unauthenticated binds may return a successful result for a valid distinguished name combined with an empty password. MISP could consequently treat the attacker as the corresponding authenticated directory user without verification of the user's password. The issue also affected the LinOTP authentication component. Invalid credential types were not rejected before being processed, and when mixed authentication was enabled, an empty password could be checked against a locally stored MISP password hash. LDAP-provisioned MISP accounts could additionally be created with an empty local password because account creation skipped normal validation, resulting in a hash corresponding to an empty password. This could permit authentication through the local fallback mechanism when such an account was no longer resolved through LDAP. Successful exploitation could allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to impersonate an existing MISP user. If the targeted account has administrative or other privileged permissions, the attacker could gain corresponding access to sensitive threat-intelligence data, modify or delete information, alter configuration, or perform other privileged operations. The patch resolves the vulnerability by requiring authentication identifiers and passwords to be valid strings, rejecting empty passwords where they are not explicitly permitted, and assigning a randomly generated local password to LDAP-provisioned accounts instead of storing a hash derived from an empty password.

CriticalCVSS 9.5Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysiscritical

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

A remote attacker may impersonate a MISP user without knowing the password when vulnerable LDAP or LinOTP authentication configurations process empty or invalid credentials. Compromise of a privileged account could expose or alter sensitive threat intelligence, delete data, or change configuration. The supplied version information is incomplete, so deployments using these authentication components should be assessed promptly.

Executive priority

Treat affected or potentially affected internet-reachable MISP deployments as an immediate remediation priority. The maximum impact includes confidentiality, integrity, and availability across MISP and potentially connected systems. Prioritize configuration discovery, patch validation, privileged-account log review, and temporary access restrictions. Exact vulnerable releases are not established by the supplied evidence, so do not defer action solely because a version is absent from the bundle.

Technical view

Custom MISP LDAP and LinOTP authenticators omitted credential checks provided by CakePHP FormAuthenticate. Empty or non-string credentials could reach authentication backends. LDAP servers permitting unauthenticated binds might accept a valid user identity with an empty password. Mixed authentication could also expose LDAP-provisioned accounts whose local password hash represented an empty password. The patch validates credential types, restricts empty passwords, and randomizes provisioned local passwords.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely where MISP uses LDAP or LinOTP authentication, particularly with LDAP unauthenticated binds, mixed authentication, or LDAP-provisioned local accounts. An attacker would need a valid directory user's email address and applicable configuration conditions. The bundle identifies MISP but does not provide reliable affected release ranges, so version-based conclusions cannot be made from this evidence alone.

Exploitation context

The issue is remotely reachable, requires no prior privileges or user interaction, but depends on authentication configuration and backend behavior. Successful abuse could inherit the targeted user's permissions. The bundle states that this CVE is not in KEV and provides no other evidence of active exploitation; absence from KEV does not prove exploitation has never occurred.

Researcher notes

The critical rating is supported by CVSS 4.0 score 9.5 and the described cross-impact potential. Exploitation is conditional: LDAP abuse depends on a valid identity plus backend acceptance of unauthenticated binds, while local fallback depends on mixed authentication and affected account provisioning. The patch addresses both input validation and empty-derived local credentials. Precise vulnerable and fixed release boundaries remain unconfirmed in the supplied sources.

Mitigation direction

  • Apply the vendor changes represented by the referenced MISP patch after appropriate testing.
  • Check MISP vendor guidance for affected releases and an officially supported upgrade target.
  • Disable LDAP unauthenticated binds and require valid, non-empty passwords at the directory service.
  • Review mixed-authentication fallback and LDAP-provisioned accounts until remediation is complete.
  • Restrict MISP access and closely monitor privileged authentication where immediate patching is unavailable.

Validation and detection

  • Confirm whether each MISP deployment enables LDAP, LinOTP, or mixed authentication.
  • Verify the deployed code includes the referenced credential-validation and random-password changes.
  • Confirm the LDAP service rejects empty-password unauthenticated binds for valid directory identities.
  • Review LDAP-provisioned accounts for unexpected local fallback authentication risk.
  • Examine authentication and administrative logs for anomalous access involving privileged users.
  • Retest valid and invalid authentication paths in a controlled environment after remediation.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
3

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-521: Credential and account abuse lookup

Authentication and credential weaknesses can make valid-account abuse and credential telemetry useful review starting points. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
description · low confidence lookup

Credential and access behavior lookup

The CVE wording references authentication or credential exposure, so valid-account and credential-access review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2026-85216 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Critical
CVSS
9.5 (4.0)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

1CVSS vectors
3Timeline events
1ADP providers
2Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: noTechnical Impact: total

CVSS vector scores

1 official score

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
9.5CVSS 4.0CriticalCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H——CIRCL

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 4.0 score

9.5Critical
CVSS 4.0 vector shape for CVE-2026-85216Attack VectorAttack ComplexityAttack RequirementsPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionVS ConfidentialityVS IntegrityVS AvailabilitySS ConfidentialitySS IntegritySS Availability

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Attack Requirements
NonePresent
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NonePassiveActive
VS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
VS Integrity
HighLowNone
VS Availability
HighLowNone
SS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
SS Integrity
HighLowNone
SS Availability
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  3. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
other:ssvc

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
mispmisp0unaffected
Weakness

CWE details

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-521 · source CWE mapping

Weak Password Requirements

Weak Password Requirements represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.