{"uuid": "b56c7342-de66-4fd2-9d5a-da299691ce37", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2026-1731", "type": "seen", "source": "https://poliverso.org/objects/0477a01e-66d81917-442e1a3db5444e7f", "content": "Exploits and vulnerabilities in Q2 2026\nThe vulnerability landscape shifted significantly in Q2 2026. First, the number of registered CVEs reached an unprecedented level. This is driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI, both for application development and search for security flaws. This resulted in entire new classes of vulnerabilities emerging, particularly in the Linux networking subsystem.\nSecond, security researchers have been publishing exploits for unpatched vulnerabilities more frequently. Publications like these can generate significant fallout, since they potentially open the door for attackers to target unprotected systems.\nStatistics on registered vulnerabilities\nThis section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data comes from Kaspersky\u2019s vulnerability knowledge base, which draws on the CVE database as well as the Russian BDU database and GitHub Advisory (GHSA). As a result, the figures for previous reporting periods may differ from those published in earlier reports.\nWe examine the number of registered vulnerabilities for each month over the last five years. As the chart below shows, this number continues to surge, a trend reflected across all the databases we track. It\u2019s driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI tools: as we predicted in our previous report, these tools have played a major role in the discovery of vulnerabilities in third-party software. Meanwhile, these tools often contain security issues of their own. For example, OpenClaw, a popular AI project, ranked 12th among those with the highest number of vulnerabilities discovered and published in Q2, with over 200 CVEs registered during the reporting period. Finally, AI development tools are also contributing to the vulnerability landscape, since the quality of the code they produce can vary widely. Therefore, the rate at which new vulnerabilities are discovered will inevitably keep growing.\nTotal published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)\nNext, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 9.0) over the same period.\nTotal critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)\nAs the chart shows, the number of published critical vulnerabilities jumped sharply in Q2. This is because using AI for vulnerability research makes it possible to analyze massive amounts of previously unexamined code, uncover new attack surfaces, and identify entire classes of vulnerabilities that have gone unnoticed for decades. In particular, AI was used to find a series of Dirty Frag vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel.\nExploitation statistics\nThis section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q2 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.\nWindows and Linux vulnerability exploitation\nQ2 2026 saw a new precedent in the publication of vulnerabilities in Windows components and exploits for these: researchers no longer waiting for CVE registration, let alone patches. A case in point: a researcher who goes by Nightmare Eclipse (also known as Chaotic Eclipse) published a list of new \u201cnamed\u201d vulnerabilities across various Windows subsystems. At the time the technical details were published, none of the vulnerabilities had been assigned a CVE identifier:\n\nBlueHammer: a local privilege escalation vulnerability in Windows Defender. During signature database updates, a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition occurs, allowing an attacker to substitute the directory where temporary update files are written. The researcher published a fully functional exploit for the vulnerability.\nRedSun: another logical vulnerability in Windows Defender with a working exploit. Suspicious and malicious files marked as \u201ccloud\u201d can be overwritten or restored to their original directory with elevated privileges. The exploit incorporates fragments of algorithms that make it possible to leverage various logical vulnerabilities in Windows, effectively combining a large number of popular exploitation techniques.\nYellowKey: a vulnerability that lets the user bypass BitLocker full-disk encryption and access system data through the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE). A fully functional exploit was also published.\nGreenPlasma: a vulnerability that enables system object injection via the CTF loader for the Collaborative Translation Framework (CTFMON) service in Windows. The original publication included an exploit with limited functionality.\nRougePlanet: yet another Windows Defender vulnerability that, like BlueHammer, stems from a TOCTOU issue, this time in the engine responsible for real-time system scanning. The published exploit uses the vulnerability to overwrite the system file wermgr.exe with a malicious one.\nUnDefend: another vulnerability in the Windows Defender service. This time, the exploit causes a denial of service and blocks updates.\nEven though such cases remain isolated for now, we believe they\u2019ll grow into a full-fledged trend. Early publication of exploits gives attackers an advantage over software developers, who are left with no time to fix the issues.\nVeteran vulnerabilities in Windows software also remain relevant. These are the ones our solutions most frequently detect exploits for:\n\nCVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component\nCVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor\nCVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system\nCVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability in WinRAR that involves improper handling of objects within an archive\nCVE-2025-6218 (formerly ZDI-CAN-27198): another WinRAR vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution\nCVE-2025-8088: a vulnerability similar in exploitation method to CVE-2025-6218. The attackers used NTFS Streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files are being unpacked\nThe vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.\nThat said, the number of Windows users who encountered exploits declined slightly in Q2, hitting an 18-month low.\nDynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 \u2013 Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)\nLinux also hit a rough patch in Q2 2026. Specifically, the period saw the disclosure of the Dirty Frag family of vulnerabilities, which lets an attacker reliably escalate privileges within the operating system.\nAll the vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 were, in one way or another, related to the Linux caching subsystem. Here are the ones being most actively exploited:\n\nCVE-2026-31431 (Copy Fail): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel that lets an unprivileged user modify the page cache and gain root privileges. Especially dangerous for cloud and containerized environments\nCVE-2026-43284, CVE-2026-43500 (Dirty Frag): a family of vulnerabilities in the Linux networking subsystem (IPsec ESP and RxRPC) that lets a local user overwrite the page cache and escalate privileges to root\nCVE-2026-46300 (Fragnesia): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel related to packet fragment handling and the page cache mechanism. It lets an unprivileged user gain root privileges and is also classified as part of the Dirty Frag family\nCVE-2026-31635 (DirtyDecrypt): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local attacker escalate privileges due to improper handling of decryption operations and page cache data modification\nCVE-2026-43494 (PinTheft): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local user gain elevated privileges due to errors in the memory page pinning mechanism\nCVE-2026-46331 (pedit COW): a vulnerability in the Linux kernel\u2019s traffic control subsystem (tc-pedit) that exploits a flaw in copy-on-write to modify the page cache and subsequently escalate privileges to root\nThe vulnerabilities described above were quickly embraced by attackers. At the same time, our solutions continue to detect exploitation attempts targeting older vulnerabilities as well:\n\nCVE-2022-0847: a vulnerability known as Dirty Pipe, which enables privilege escalation and the hijacking of running applications\nCVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation\nCVE-2021-22555: a heap out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem\nCVE-2023-32233: another Netfilter subsystem vulnerability that allows for Use-After-Free conditions and privilege escalation through improper processing of network requests\nDynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 \u2013 Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)\nIn Q2 2026, the number of Linux users who encountered exploits declined slightly compared to Q1. Given that a significant share of new vulnerabilities are tied to the operating system\u2019s caching subsystem, we recommend installing patches as quickly as possible, or disabling vulnerable kernel modules if patching isn\u2019t an option.\nMost common published exploits\nThe distribution of published exploits by software type in Q2 2026 includes categories that haven\u2019t appeared in the sample for a long time. For instance, we\u2019re once again seeing exploits targeting SharePoint. It\u2019s worth noting that while several vulnerability write-ups for Exchange and SharePoint were published during the quarter, most turned out to be fake, AI-generated research. While the articles and exploit source code themselves look fairly polished, they describe nonexistent problems in the software or its components \u2014 often close to genuinely vulnerable mechanisms \u2014 in order to mislead researchers. This type of attack is aimed at increasing the time it takes to detect real vulnerabilities. In some cases, the description of a nonexistent vulnerability came bundled with completely unrelated malware.\nDistribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)\nDistribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2026 (download)\nVulnerability exploitation in APT attacks\nWe analyzed which vulnerabilities were exploited in APT attacks during Q2 2026. The rankings provided below include data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.\nTOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q2 2026 (download)\nIn Q2 2026, a trend emerged in APT attacks toward exploiting new vulnerabilities right from the moment they\u2019re published. As before, we\u2019re also seeing a large number of zero-day vulnerabilities. The Langflow vulnerability deserves particular attention: it\u2019s one of the first cases of an APT group exploiting AI technology, which many organizations are only just beginning to integrate. Because most of this tech is proprietary, it has a considerable number of security blind spots. Therefore, given the growing number of AI-based automation tools, we strongly recommend going beyond the usual patching and developing secure procedures for credential use and sensitive data handling in systems that rely on agents and LLMs.\nC2 frameworks\nIn this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by APT groups and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.\nThe chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks during Q2 2026, according to open sources.\nTOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q2 2026 (download)\nSliver, Havoc, AdaptixC2, and Metasploit remain the most widely used C2 frameworks. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:\n\nCVE-2026-35273: a vulnerability in Oracle PeopleSoft PeopleTools that security vendors classify as server-side request forgery (SSRF). The details of the vulnerability have never been disclosed, although some research covers the post-exploitation steps\nCVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ that allows arbitrary code execution in the context of the service process\nCVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication\nCVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that allows commands to be run on the system, bypassing the mark-of-the-web (MoTW) mechanism\nCVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server\nCVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities in WinRAR that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predetermined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user\nThese vulnerabilities show that attackers used them for initial access and privilege escalation on vulnerable systems, setting the stage for launching a C2 agent. They include both zero-day vulnerabilities and fairly well-known security issues.\nLLM/AI tool vulnerabilities\nThis section analyzes data published in Kaspersky\u2019s vulnerability knowledge base. We reviewed the Q2 2026 version of the knowledge base.\nAs mentioned above, AI tools, plugins, and technologies have proven fairly effective at automating the search for problematic code and anomalous behavior. The high speed at which new vulnerabilities are being discovered has naturally created a need to fix them just as quickly. AI is often used for this too, which increases the volume of code being generated. However, neither code written without human involvement nor AI-generated advice is always correct.\nThe chart below covers registered vulnerabilities in AI tools for 2025\u20132026.\nNumber of published vulnerabilities in LLMs, AI tools, and plugins with similar functionality, 2025\u20132026 (download)\nAs the charts show, AI tools are racking up a substantial number of registered vulnerabilities, and that number keeps growing quarter over quarter. It\u2019s also worth looking at how AI tool vulnerabilities break down by type, according to the CWE system:\nTOP 6 vulnerability types in products that implement or use AI/LLM logic, 2025\u20132026\nInterestingly, vulnerabilities of an undetermined type have ranked first in every quarter since the start of 2025. Traditionally-made software has the same issue, and it doesn\u2019t look like the growing number of AI tools will fix it. It\u2019s also notable that the list includes classes CWE developers themselves don\u2019t recommend using for vulnerability classification, since they lump together a whole range of more specific types. CWE-284 is an example of this.\nLooking at the most common classes, the key issues found in AI-related software can be summed up as follows:\n\nInadequate access control over critical system objects\nImproper implementation of authentication and authorization mechanisms\nInjections\nIt\u2019s worth noting that injection-related vulnerabilities were relatively rare before AI agents took off (previously, they mostly affected web apps). Recently, though, these security issues have become relevant again.\nLooking back at a year and a half of the AI boom, one conclusion stands out regarding registered vulnerabilities: AI tool developers are more focused on expanding functionality than on security. This is worth keeping in mind when using these tools. Let\u2019s look at the projects and applications that either integrated AI tools or offered them as the core product. Below is a list of the those with the highest number of registered vulnerabilities for 2025\u20132026.\nTOP AI/LLM-related projects by number of published vulnerabilities, 2025\u20132026 (download)\nNotable vulnerabilities\nThis section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 that have publicly available descriptions. Since the above already covers several significant vulnerabilities published during the reporting period, this section consists mainly of LLM/AI tool vulnerabilities.\nCVE-2026-25253: a gatewayUrl vulnerability in OpenClaw\nThe issue stems from the fact that the OpenClaw user interface trusts the value of the gatewayUrl parameter passed in the URL and automatically establishes a WebSocket connection to the specified address. During this connection process, it sends an authentication token without any additional user confirmation.\nThe attack algorithm exploiting this vulnerability works as follows:\n\nThe application obtains a critical connection address from an external source (the gatewayUrl URL parameter), which is controlled by the attacker.\nThere is no validation before use.\nThe client automatically initiates a connection to the address specified in the parameter, which belongs to the attacker.\nWhile connected, the application sends credentials (an access token) to the specified address.\nIf the attacker obtains a valid token, the consequences depend on that token\u2019s level of access within the system. In general, this could lead to:\n\nUser session compromise\nExecution of operations on the user\u2019s behalf\nModification of the AI agent configuration\nUnauthorized access to tools and resources connected to the agent\nUnder certain OpenClaw configurations, further compromise of the host running the agent\nIt\u2019s worth noting that the risk of exploitation arises from a combination of several factors: the automatic connection and token transmission, the lack of address trust verification, and the high privileges granted to the local AI agent.\nCVE-2026-41948: a path traversal vulnerability in the Dify AI platform\nThe vulnerability lets an authenticated user craft a request that enables the application to escape its permitted tenant and gain access to internal REST APIs that weren\u2019t meant for that user. The root cause is insufficient normalization and validation of the URL path before it\u2019s passed to the internal service.\nDepending on the Dify configuration, the consequences can include:\n\nUnauthorized access to internal service interfaces\nBreach of isolation between workspaces\nExposure of internal service information\nConditions favorable to further attacks when combined with other vulnerabilities\nThe use of Dify in enterprise AI platforms is particularly risky, since internal services there tend to hold elevated privileges.\nCVE-2026-45386: an improper access control vulnerability in Open WebUI\nIn Open WebUI, pin/unpin operations on messages are write operations, since they modify that message\u2019s metadata (is_pinned, pinned_by, pinned_at). In vulnerable versions, however, before performing these actions, the API only checked for read access to the channel (a chat between a user or group and the AI) containing the message, not permission to modify its content. As a result, a user with a role limited to viewing messages could still change a message\u2019s pinned status.\nThe vulnerability\u2019s mechanism works as follows:\n\nThe user initiates an action that changes the state of an object.\nThe application treats this action as a regular read request.\nOnly channel view permission is checked.\nThe application performs a write without verifying the required user authorization.\nThis violates one of the fundamental principles of access control models \u2014 namely, that any operation that changes the state of data must be checked for the appropriate write or moderation permissions, regardless of whether the object itself is readable.\nAlthough the vulnerability doesn\u2019t lead to arbitrary code execution or compromise of sensitive data, it can affect data integrity and collaborative workflows. Potential consequences of exploitation include unauthorized pinning or unpinning of messages, disruption of channel moderators\u2019 and administrators\u2019 activities, changes to the display order of important information, and even the potential spread of false or misleading information by altering the channel containing a pinned message.\nOpen WebUI is widely used as an interface for interacting with local and enterprise LLMs. In these systems, pinned messages often contain important instructions, announcements, or tips for users. The ability to modify them with minimal privileges can disrupt collaborative workflows, cause confusion, and undermine trust in information published by administrators and moderators.\nCVE-2026-45501: a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange\nThe vulnerability stems from improper neutralization of user input when generating Exchange web pages. As a result, the browser may interpret specially crafted data as active content instead of plain text.\nAlthough Microsoft categorizes the potential impact of exploiting this vulnerability as spoofing, flaws like this can lead to alteration of displayed content, imitation of trusted interfaces, actions on behalf of the user within an active session, and abuse of user trust.\nIt\u2019s worth noting that issues like this are still relevant in modern software, given that mechanisms like Content Security Policy and various parsers were specifically created to help developers neutralize dangerous parts of user page content.\nConclusion and advice\nQ2 brought the first significant results of AI automation adoption in software development and vulnerability hunting tools. This research shows that beyond traditional patch management, organizations now need real-time monitoring of systems and access controls, since infrastructure and everyday applications now contain far more AI functionality that could lead to compromise.\nAccordingly, besides quickly detecting infrastructure vulnerabilities and managing security patches, modern enterprise-grade security solutions need to provide a broad range of preventive measures for tracking the overall health of systems and workstations. Kaspersky Next meets these requirements by combining proactive mechanisms with the ability to respond promptly to emerging threats. \nsecurelist.com/vulnerabilities\u2026", "creation_timestamp": "2026-08-26T10:30:36.593854Z"}