CVE-2026-25679
Is CVE-2026-25679 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
url.Parse insufficiently validated the host/authority component and accepted some invalid URLs.
NVD only has a brief summary for this one. The community fills in the real-world detail below.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-25679)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-25679"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-25679/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-25679"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.5) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 1%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-425.
- CVE-2024-45195HIGH 7.5KEVEPSS 100%
Direct Request ('Forced Browsing') vulnerability in Apache OFBiz. This issue affects Apache OFBiz: before 18.12.16. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 18.12.16, which fixes the issue.
- CVE-2021-26085MED 5.3KEVEPSS 100%
Affected versions of Atlassian Confluence Server allow remote attackers to view restricted resources via a Pre-Authorization Arbitrary File Read vulnerability in the /s/ endpoint. The affected versions are before version 7.4.10, and from version 7.5.0 before 7.12.3.
- CVE-2026-10521HIGH 7.2Real · low riskEPSS 0%
An high privileged remote attacker can access a hidden configuration method, that should not be accessible by any user, to modify critical program parameters. This can result in a total loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.
- CVE-2026-7500MED 5.4EPSS 0%
When Keycloak is started with `--features-disabled=account,account-api`, the Account REST API is only partially disabled. Five endpoints under the versioned path `/account/v1alpha1` remain fully functional — including both read and write operations — because they lack the `checkAccountApiEnabled()` gate that correctly blocks four other endpoints in the same REST service class. The user needs to have permissions to use the API.
- CVE-2026-9610LOW 2.3EPSS 0%
IBM Datacap 9.1.7, 9.1.8, and 9.1.9 and IBM Datacap Navigator 9.1.7, 9.1.8, and 9.1.9 exposes resources or functionality that isn't linked in the UI but is accessible by directly requesting the URL, bypassing intended access controls.
- CVE-2024-23573LOW 3.7EPSS 0%
HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the Application is vulnerable to Lucky 13. that makes the SS LLUCKY13 possible affects the TLS1.1and 1.2 and DTLS1.0 or 1.2 implementations . It also affects previous versions such as SSL3.0 and TLS1.0. This can also be considered a type of man-in-the-middle attack.