The industry has decided to take that away. The CA/Browser Forum voted in April 2025 to bring the maximum TLS certificate lifespan down in steps: 200 days from March 2026, 100 days from March 2027, and 47 days from March 2029, with domain validation reuse dropping to 10 days. The first step is already live: since March 15, 2026, no publicly trusted TLS certificate can be valid for more than 200 days. By 2029 you will be proving ownership of your domains roughly every month, for every certificate, forever. The spreadsheet does not survive that. Neither does the person.

Why TLS certificate lifespans are shrinking to 47 days

Shorter lifespans shrink the window in which a stolen key or a mis-issued certificate is useful, and they push the whole ecosystem onto automation, which is where the reliability actually comes from. The destination is better. The journey is where outages live. Every manual step in your renewal process is a place where a 47-day cycle breaks something a 365-day cycle never stressed. We covered what the vote means for Imperva customers when it passed; this post is the checklist.

How to prepare for 47-day certificates: five things to do, in order

1. Inventory what you actually have. Every certificate, every domain, every site, and who renews it. Cloud WAF reports SSL coverage status for each protected site, so start with your public-facing estate. It is the part with a deadline attached and the part your customers meet first.
2. Automate domain validation now. Manual validation at a 10-day reuse window is not a process, it is a permanent job for somebody. Automatic CNAME validation makes ownership proof continuous, and it is the single change that turns the 2029 schedule from alarming to routine. The payoff starts now, not in 2029: Imperva already requires domain revalidation every 99 days for its managed certificates. We walked through the setup in Effortless certificate management with automated CNAME validation.
3. Find your non-SNI traffic before it finds you. Server Name Indication (SNI) is the TLS extension that tells the server which hostname a client is asking for. Clients that do not send it, usually older HTTP libraries, outdated monitoring tools and misconfigured internal services, cannot be served a site certificate (a site with non-SNI connections is not eligible for one), and they are rejected outright once a site moves to SNI-only mode. That is why this step comes before the next one. Non-SNI clients are also invisible unless you go looking. One custom rule with the filter hasSNI == false, set to Alert, logs every non-SNI request as a security event without blocking anything. Leave it running for a week or two, since some of this traffic is periodic, then decide. Imperva Cloud WAF Technical Guide: How to Identify Non-SNI Traffic Before Enabling SNI-Only Mode walks through it step by step.
4. Isolate the blast radius. A certificate shared across your whole estate means one renewal problem is everyone’s problem. Imperva site certificates give each site its own certificate, its own coverage status and up to 50 domains, so one team’s missed renewal does not become another team’s outage. New SNI-only sites have required site certificates since September 13, 2026, and Imperva recommends migrating existing SNI sites off shared account certificates by December 31, 2026, before automatic migration begins in Q1 2027.
5. Connect the certificate system you already run. If your certificates are governed in a Certificate Lifecycle Management (CLM) platform, the system that issues, tracks and renews certificates centrally, or in your own PKI, those renewals should reach your WAF without a person in between. The SSL Integration Center connects that workflow directly to Imperva Cloud WAF. DigiCert Trust Lifecycle Manager and Keyfactor Command are on the supported vendor list, with further CLM integrations in progress.

What Imperva is already doing: 90-day certificates and the R46 root

Imperva-managed certificates have already moved to 90-day validity (with domain validation every 99 days), ahead of the industry deadlines, with renewal and deployment automated end to end. Root trust is moving too: the GlobalSign root transition (R3 to R46) is covered by a cross certificate that Imperva includes by default until the R3 root expires in March 2029, so legacy clients keep working, and action is needed only if you pin to a specific root certificate. The direction of travel is simple. Certificate work becomes something you configure once, not something you do monthly.

The detail lives in the Cloud WAF documentation, and walks the site-certificate path step by step.

Back to that spreadsheet. If it is yours, the right time to retire it is while it still works. If you retired it years ago, the question is whether your automation reaches all the way to your applications, or stops at the CA.

Frequently asked questions about 47-day certificates

When do 47-day TLS certificates take effect?
From March 15, 2029, publicly trusted TLS certificates can be valid for no more than 47 days. The CA/Browser Forum schedule gets there in steps: 200 days from March 15, 2026 (already in force) and 100 days from March 15, 2027.

How often will I need to validate domain ownership?
The period for reusing domain validation follows the same schedule: 200 days from March 2026, 100 days from March 2027 and 10 days from March 2029. In practice that means validating for almost every renewal, which is why an automated method such as CNAME delegation matters.

Do I need to do anything for Imperva-managed certificates?
Imperva renews and deploys its managed certificates automatically, and they already have 90-day validity. What stays with you is domain validation (automatic CNAME validation removes it), moving SNI sites from shared account certificates to site certificates, and updating your trust store if you pin to a root certificate.

What happens to clients that don’t support SNI?
A client that doesn’t send SNI can’t be served a site certificate, and once a site moves to SNI-only mode those connections are rejected. A custom rule with the filter hasSNI == false, set to Alert, shows whether you have any before you switch.

The post 47-Day Certificates Are Coming: Five Things to Do Before They Arrive appeared first on Blog.

Most quantum-readiness advice hands you a project: audit your cryptography, plan your migration, stand up a working group. Here is what Cloud WAF customers had to do to get quantum-safe TLS on every connection between their users and the Imperva network: nothing.

What shipped: hybrid post-quantum TLS on every Cloud WAF site

Every TLS 1.3 connection from a PQC-capable client to Imperva now negotiates hybrid TLS key agreement: X25519MLKEM768, which runs classical X25519 and quantum-safe ML-KEM-768 together. ML-KEM is the key-encapsulation mechanism NIST standardized as FIPS 203 in August 2024. It is enabled by default on all Imperva sites, with zero configuration and no measurable performance trade-off. If a client supports it, it is on. Your users’ sessions are already protected against the recording attack, and nobody on your team filed a ticket to make that happen. You can see it for yourself: open Chrome DevTools, go to the Security panel, and the connection to any Imperva-protected site lists X25519MLKEM768 as its key exchange. We explained earlier this year why post-quantum cryptography can’t wait; this post is the update now that both legs are covered.

The second leg: post-quantum TLS from Imperva to your origin

A proxy architecture has two connections per request: client to edge, and edge to origin. As of the October 4, 2026 release, Imperva also supports PQC on the Imperva-to-origin leg, so customers whose origin servers support post-quantum key agreement get quantum-safe encryption end to end: from the user’s browser, through the Imperva network, to their own infrastructure. The requirement on your side is one sentence long: an origin that can negotiate the hybrid handshake. In practice, that means OpenSSL 3.5 or later, which offers X25519MLKEM768 by default. Sites created on or after October 4, 2026 get PQC to origin automatically. Existing sites keep their current behavior until you switch it on under SSL/TLS Configuration > Origin connection security, or with the /v3/sites/origin-pqc API. If an origin can’t negotiate the hybrid handshake, the connection falls back to classical TLS without disruption.

The honest scope: what hybrid key agreement covers

Post-quantum TLS is arriving across the industry, and that is a good thing; no vendor should claim the category. What differs is the operational bill. Here the answer is: defaults. No premium SKU, no per-site enablement, no migration project for the edge leg, and, for end to end, an origin-side capability check plus one switch on sites created before October 4, 2026. For regulated sectors already fielding quantum questions from auditors and boards (finance, healthcare, defense), that turns a program into a paragraph in your next review. Behind it sits the Thales portfolio, where post-quantum work spans well beyond the WAF. One limit worth stating plainly: hybrid key agreement protects the confidentiality of each session, which is exactly what a harvest now, decrypt later attack targets. Certificate signatures are a separate, later migration (NIST’s ML-DSA, FIPS 204), because forging a signature needs a quantum computer at the moment of the handshake. Recorded traffic gives an attacker nothing to work with there.

What to do about harvest now, decrypt later

• Nothing, for the client leg. It is already on.
• Check your origin stack for hybrid key-agreement support, and switch on the second leg when it does. That means OpenSSL 3.5 or later. New sites have PQC to origin on by default; existing sites need it switched on once, in the Cloud Security Console or through the API.
• Put one line in your next security review: sessions through Cloud WAF are quantum-safe by default. Boards like sentences that end.

Detail, including how to test PQC and how to switch it on for your origin, is in the Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Support documentation.

The recording attacker is patient. As of now, what they are recording from your traffic is noise with no future.

Harvest now, decrypt later: FAQ

What is a harvest now, decrypt later (HNDL) attack?

An attacker records encrypted traffic today and stores it until a cryptographically relevant quantum computer can break the classical key exchange that protected it. Data that must stay confidential for years is at risk now, even though that quantum computer does not exist yet.

Is Imperva Cloud WAF traffic protected against harvest now, decrypt later?

Yes, for the key exchange. TLS 1.3 connections from PQC-capable clients to Imperva use hybrid X25519MLKEM768 by default on all sites. Connections from Imperva to your origin use it when the origin supports it (OpenSSL 3.5 or later) and PQC to origin is on: by default for sites created on or after October 4, 2026, and opt-in for existing sites.

What is X25519MLKEM768?

It is the hybrid TLS 1.3 key-exchange group that combines classical X25519 elliptic-curve key agreement with ML-KEM-768 (FIPS 203). An attacker has to break both to recover the session key. It follows the hybrid model adopted by Google Chrome and other major browsers, and it is what Chrome DevTools shows when a connection is post-quantum protected.

What happens if a client or origin doesn’t support post-quantum TLS?

The connection falls back to classical TLS key exchange without disruption. PQC is used only when both sides support it, and it requires TLS 1.3. See the Imperva PQC documentation for the handshake scenarios.

The post Harvest Now, Decrypt Later: The Attack You Defend Against by Doing Nothing appeared first on Blog.

Imperva Threat Research identified a series of remote denial‑of‑service vulnerabilities in GraphQL Java, one of the most widely used libraries for GraphQL in the Java ecosystem. 

In this blog, we’ll deep dive into these vulnerabilities, analyze their impact, and provide recommendations to protect your environment. If your endpoints are protected by Imperva Web Application Firewall, your systems are already protected against these threats.  

Introduction 

GraphQL Java is the engine beneath Spring for GraphQL, Netflix DGS, and Atlassian’s own products. With over one million downloads per month and ten years of production use, it is a natural choice for any team building a GraphQL API on the JVM. 

Over the last few years, multiple types of DoS attacks have been identified across GraphQL implementations. These vulnerabilities can lead to either denial of service or, in cloud-billed environments, excessive cost consumption. In response, the industry converged on a set of protective controls, like depth limiting, query complexity budgets, and field count caps. Apollo added query cost analysis and depth limiting, GitHub meters its public GraphQL API by computed node cost, and GraphQL Java also introduced additional controls. 

However, these enhancements can leave blind spots earlier in the pipeline, before the server has even understood the request. 

The DoS attack we found live in the first half of the pipeline, where the query is parsed and validated, and therefore independent from the schema, the resolvers, and any backend logic.  

They were reported under GHSA-7p4r-9rcc-8vhv (still as draft) and fixed in versions 24.4, 25.1, and 26.1. Several products embedding the library were affected, including Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Atlassian Confluence, and HAPI FHIR server, a widely used open-source implementation of the HL7 FHIR healthcare interoperability standard. 

Request Processing 

Fig. 1: GraphQL Processing High Level Pipeline 

GraphQL was built around a simple idea: “GraphQL queries mirror their response.” In other words, the client describes exactly the data it needs, while the server determines how to retrieve and resolve that data. The query is then sent to a GraphQL endpoint, where it goes through a series of processing steps before the response is returned: 

• HTTP Request: The server receives the GraphQL query. 
• Lexing: The query is broken down into tokens. 
• Parsing: The tokens are turned into an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) representing the query structure. 
• Validation: The query is checked against the GraphQL schema and its rules. 
• Execution: GraphQL invokes the appropriate resolvers to retrieve the requested data. 
• JSON Response: The results are assembled and returned to the client. 

The distinction between these stages matters. A request can be rejected before execution because its syntax is invalid or because it does not match the schema. Only after passing these checks does GraphQL reach the resolvers, where the application and its underlying data sources are accessed. 

For security research, this pipeline provides a useful way to understand the attack surface. Each stage processes attacker-controlled input in a different way, making it important to understand not only what GraphQL does, but also when and where it does it. 

Parsing and Validation: A Closer Look 

Before a server decides what data to return, it must first decide whether the request makes sense. Parsing breaks the raw query text into an Abstract Syntax Tree. This involves: 

• Resolving string literals: block strings go through a dedicated normalization routine that strips leading and trailing blank lines. 
• Constructing AST nodes for every value encountered: numeric literals are converted to BigInteger or BigDecimal at this point. 

Validation walks the AST and checks it against the schema. This involves: 

• Field and type checks: do the requested fields exist? Do the argument types match? 
• Fragment validation: named fragments must not form cycles, directly or transitively 
• Limit enforcement: in GraphQL Java 26.0, maxDepth and maxFieldsCount are checked here. 

Fragment Cycle Detection 

Validation is where fragment cycle detection takes place. Named fragments are GraphQL’s reuse mechanism. Instead of repeating the same selection set in multiple places, a client defines it once and references it with a spread: 

Fig. 2: Named Fragments in GraphQL 

Fragments can themselves spread other fragments. The spec allows arbitrary nesting, but it forbids cycles: if A spreads B and B spreads A, resolving either one requires resolving the other first. The execution engine would recurse indefinitely. The same applies to indirect cycles across any number of fragments. 

This check happens during validation, after parsing has produced the AST and before execution starts. At this point the server has a complete map of every named fragment in the document and every spread reference between them.  

Cycle detection is pretty straightforward: for each fragment, follow its spread references transitively and check whether any path leads back to the starting node. If it does, the document is rejected with a validation error and execution never starts. 

ValidateNoFragmentCycles is called once per FragmentDefinition in the document. Each call starts with a fresh HashMap. 

For each fragment, it calls buildTransitiveSpreads, a depth-first traversal that follows every spread reference outward, building up the set of fragments reachable from the starting node.  

The traversal tracks its current path in an ArrayList, and at each step calls ArrayList.contains to check whether the next node has already been visited.  

Worst Case Scenario 

We considered a document with the following chain of d fragments: 

Fig. 3: Malicious Payload Structure 

For each fragment, ValidateNoFragmentCycles starts a new traversal with a fresh HashMap. Since the traversal follows the entire chain, and ArrayList.contains iterates over the path of fragments visited so far, the cost of a single validation is O(d²).  

Fig. 4: Processing of the First Fragment 

Since this happens for all fragments, the overall complexity is O(d³), where d is the number of fragments in the document. Within the default 15,000-token limit, a single payload can contain up to around 1,800 fragments (~50 KB), which is sufficient to saturate a CPU core for several minutes at every request. 

Why existing GraphQL protections may not help 

Traditional GraphQL protections such as depth limits and field-count limits operate during validation. However, this attack specifically targets the validation step itself. Therefore, it hits before the protections can prevent the attack. 

Following the reception of our report, graphql-java released a patch that introduces memoization. Once a fragment has been explored, it is marked as done and never re-traversed again. The same malicious payload is processed in a few milliseconds instead. 

This finding was the most impactful, but it wasn’t the only one. 

Additional Remote DoS Vulnerabilities 

We identified the same underlying idea as one of the attack vectors previously identified in React Server Components (BigInt values, CVE-2026-23864), and another vector involving block string normalization routine, more impactful. Both fixed in 24.4, 25.1 and 26.1. 

HAPI FHIR Use Case 

HAPI FHIR is a Java server designed to store and serve medical data (patients, prescriptions, lab results) using the FHIR healthcare standard. Like many modern APIs, it exposes a GraphQL endpoint that clients can use to query this data.  

Internally, HAPI handles GraphQL requests with its own parser, written specifically for FHIR, which knows how to resolve medical resources. But when a client asks for introspection (a standard GraphQL feature that returns the full list of available queries and types) HAPI delegates directly to graphql-java.  

However, it’s possible to bypass HAPI’s custom FHIR resolver and route a non-introspection query straight to graphql-java. 

This delegation is triggered by a simple string check: it relies on the presence of the string `__schema` in the body.  

Therefore, simply starting the request with the following pattern (see Fig 5.) was enough. 

Fig. 5: bypass HAPI’s custom FHIR GraphQL resolver 

Tested on a fresh c7i.2xlarge instance, with the latest HAPI server with graphql enabled, a single request took 150 seconds of validation. A single wave of multiple small requests could lock the server entirely for several minutes and pin all 8 CPU cores at 100% for more than an hour. 

In this application, this attack vector could represent an alternative avenue for a threat actor lacking authorization to exfiltrate patient data (as HAPI’s authorization model governs GraphQL endpoint access and data read permissions independently), and still willing to cause impact. 

The attack surface is further widened by HAPI’s default CORS configuration (allows any origin, Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *). In environments where no additional network controls are in place, this means the attack could be triggered from a browser: a healthcare worker opening a malicious link while connected to the internal network is sufficient to take down the FHIR server for everyone. 

Who is Affected? 

An application is potentially exposed when: 

• It uses an affected version of GraphQL Java;  
• It accepts attacker-controlled GraphQL documents;  
• The GraphQL endpoint is remotely reachable;  
• No upstream control blocks the malicious request.  

Remediation 

The fixes are available in GraphQL Java versions 24.4, 25.1, and 26.1 via PRs #4440, #4441. 

For environments where an immediate upgrade is not possible: 

• Restrict access to affected GraphQL endpoints to authenticated or otherwise trusted clients where the application permits it. 
• Apply rate limiting and concurrency limits to restrict the number of GraphQL requests that can be processed simultaneously. 
• Monitor CPU utilization and GraphQL request latency for unusual increases that may indicate resource-exhaustion attempts. 

If your endpoints are protected by Imperva Web Application Firewall, your systems are already protected against these threats. 

Conclusion 

As AI accelerates vulnerability discovery and exploitation, threat actors can increasingly scan a target environment in real time, identify weaknesses across its technology stack, and rapidly turn those findings into attacks. This reduces the time organizations must detect and remediate newly exposed vulnerabilities, making proactive and continuously enforced security controls increasingly important. 

Affected organizations should upgrade to a fixed release as soon as possible. Until patches can be applied, additional controls at the application and network layers can help reduce exposure and limit the impact of potential attacks. 

Imperva customers are protected against exploitation of these vulnerabilities. Imperva Threat Research will continue to monitor this threat and work to ensure that customers remain protected against emerging attack techniques targeting GraphQL and other widely deployed technologies. 

Timeline 

August 11 – We reported the security issue to GraphQL Java. 

August 19 – Report Acknowledged. 

August 23 – Fix released in versions 24.4, 25.1 and 26.1. 

The post New Remote DoS Attacks Against GraphQL Java appeared first on Blog.

AI-assisted development has crossed a threshold. The question is no longer whether your IDE communicates with an AI, it’s how deeply that AI is now wired into your local environment. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is one of the plumbing behind this shift: a JSON-RPC-based protocol that lets AI assistants invoke tools running on your machine. From setting a breakpoint, to running tests, or launching a debugger… all from a chat window. 

DebugMCP is one of the extensions leading that charge. Published by Microsoft on GitHub, it exposes a local MCP server that gives any compatible AI agent (GitHub Copilot, Cline, Cursor, Codex, Windsurf, and others) direct control over the VS Code debugger. The value proposition is compelling: instead of pasting stack traces into a chat window and waiting for a suggestion, an AI agent can set breakpoints, step through code, inspect variables, and evaluate expressions autonomously.  

We identified and reported a critical security issue in version 1.1.4. A remote attacker who tricked a developer into visiting a malicious webpage could achieve arbitrary code execution on that developer’s machine, in the background, without any further user interaction (drive by).  

Following our report, the maintainers patched DebugMCP via commit 86776b2m. The fix was silently shipped (no version bump, no advisory) and is included in version 1.2.0 and later. We are publishing this report following the 90-day disclosure period. 

We recommend updating to the latest available version. 

Scope 

The exploitability of this weakness was amplified by the context in which the software evolves.  

Indeed, we’re talking about an opensource MCP server hosted on GitHub, that can be used as a standalone server. But this MCP server is also exposed as an extension in VSCode Marketplace, installable with a single click both in local endpoints, and in shared servers via systems like Github CodeSpaces, OpenVSCode Server, etc. 

From this single installation click, the server is automatically started and listening on port 3001 without authentication, opening the door to RCE. 

First, we’ll explore how this issue could be exploited from a surrounding compromised device, and we’ll then demonstrate how DNS rebinding could be exploited to trigger RCE via simply having a victim browse to a malicious site. 

Root Cause 

DNS Rebinding 

DNS Rebinding is a recurrent risk issue when it comes to MCP servers’ development (See our previous blogpost: Another Critical RCE Discovered in a Popular MCP Server).   

At the end of 2025, probably following a series of vulnerabilities identified in multiple MCP servers, Anthropic added an additional layer of security to prevent this risk (CVE-2025-66414) that adds a default security layer in most MCP server cases.  

Version 1.24.0 of modelcontextprotocol introduces createMcpExpressApp, a preconfigured express server instance that automatically registers validateHostHeader and validateOriginHeader. Together, these functions prevent the risk of DNS rebinding.  

However, the library still relies on maintainers to use header validation middleware functions in case of custom express configuration. And in the case of DebugMCP, this is lacking. 

That was the first node of our attack chain. 

Combined with the lack of host and origin definition and validation, the custom express server defined (identical to CVE-2025-53967), exposed the MCP tools far beyond the intended reach.  

But independently from the broad network exposure, an LLM could be tricked via indirect prompt injection to access a file outside VSCode workspace trust, and the fix produced by the maintainers doesn’t answer this question.

Uncontrolled File Path 

To further explore the attack chain, let’s review the tools exposed. 

The README lists the available tools, including: 

• start_debugging: launches a debugging session for a given file path 
• get_debugger_state: returns the current state of an active debugging session 
• add_breakpoint / remove_breakpoint: manage breakpoints 
• step_over / step_into / step_out: stepping controls 
• get_variables: inspect local variables in the current stack frame 
• evaluate_expression: evaluate an arbitrary expression in the debugger context 
• continue_execution: resume execution

From reading the tool definitions, start_debugging jumped out immediately since it accepted a fileFullPath argument and instructs VS Code to launch a debugger session for that file. That’s a file execution primitive. 

But to obtain an efficient RCE chain, a few more steps were required. 

The UNC Path Primitive 

At first glance, because the vulnerability requires knowing the full path of an executable on the victim’s machine, it seems difficult to weaponize reliably in the wild. 

However, on Windows, the Universal Naming Convention (UNC) path format allows programs to reference files on network shares using paths of the form: 

\\SERVER\SHARE\path\to\file 

This feature enabled us to make DebugMCP pass the path to VS Code’s debugging infrastructure, which passed it to the Python launcher, which reached out to the attacker’s SMB share and loaded the file. The file executed under the victim’s user context. 

Fig. 1: SMB endpoint to fetch payload 

The proof-of-concept payload was intentionally benign: 

import os
os.system(“calc.exe”) 

After a few seconds, Calculator opened. The attacker’s code was running on the victim’s machine via a single HTTP request. 

At this point we had a working local exploit, if we could send one HTTP request to port 3001 with an attacker-controlled UNC path and get code execution.  

The remaining question was how to deliver that request from a remote attacker’s position to a victim’s localhost, across the same-origin policy that is supposed to make this impossible. 

Stateless MCP session 

One part of the answer lies in the MCP itself. You can find a detailed introduction to the protocol here. 

What matters here is one implementation detail that significantly reduced the attack complexity. 

MCP over HTTP is built on JSON-RPC 2.0. The protocol specification describes a lifecycle: a client must send an initialize request, receive the server’s capability response, then send an initialized notification (only after this handshake can tool calls be made). This sequence implies a minimum of two round-trips before any tool is invoked, and it gives a server the opportunity to establish authenticated session state. 

The MCP TypeScript SDK’s StreamableHTTPServerTransport enforces this lifecycle through a validateSession function called on every non-initialize request. The enforcement is conditional: 

Fig. 2: Stateless MCP mode 

When sessionIdGenerator is undefined, validateSession returns immediately without checking anything. The entire initialization lifecycle is bypassed. In DebugMCP v1.1.4, the transport was explicitly configured in stateless mode.  

The consequence for the attack chain is direct: a single no-cors HTTP request was sufficient to trigger the attack. 

Browser Local Network Protections 

However, there was a last ingredient we needed to incorporate to obtain a frictionless exploit. 

Indeed, Local Network Access’s aim is to protect users from cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks targeting routers and other devices on private networks, and to reduce the ability of sites to use these requests to fingerprint the user’s local network. 

Combined with the same-origin policy (that prevents a piece of JavaScript from one domain  and make cors requests to a different one and get the response), in modern browsers, there is a good chance a warning popup would be displayed and halt the execution of the malicious content if a threat actor tries to scan the local network.  

But DNS rebinding is a technique that can potentially circumvent this boundary by exploiting the way browsers cache DNS records. And as we explained earlier, DebugMCP doesn’t include MCP default mitigation added by Anthropic against this risk. 

Here is the attack flow: 

Fig. 3: Attack Flow 

The sequence unfolds in six steps: 

Step 1: Victim visits the page. The attacker’s domain resolves to the attacker’s public IP (Phase 1 DNS). The browser loads the initial page content.  

Step 2: DNS Rebinding. The domain was registered with a very short TTL: 1 to 2 seconds. Firefox enforces an internal minimum cache duration of ~60 seconds regardless of the declared TTL, so the page polls in a JavaScript loop until the entry expires and Firefox re-resolves the name: at which point the attacker’s DNS server returns 127.0.0.1. 

Step 3: Local Network Access. The attacker’s JavaScript, issues a fetch to http://evil.attacker.com:3001/mcp?transport=streamable_http. The browser considers this request same-origin and sends it. The DNS entry now points to 127.0.0.1, so the request arrives at the victim’s local DebugMCP server. 

Step 4: DebugMCP Execution. The request reaches the Microsoft DebugMCP server running locally on the victim’s machine. DebugMCP processes the request and triggers its Python launcher, which is responsible for starting the debugging workflow. 

Step 5: Malicious Payload Download. The Python launcher connects to a publicly accessible SMB share controlled by the attacker and downloads the malicious Python script onto the victim’s machine. 

Step 6: Code Execution. The launcher passes the downloaded script to the start_debugging() function. DebugMCP then executes the attacker-controlled payload, ultimately giving the attacker code execution on the victim’s machine. 

Demonstration 

Although the exploit triggers error messages in the VS Code console, the payload is still successfully executed. We used Firefox version 150.0.3, the latest at the time of our research. 

Note: After the research, Firefox enforced a Local Network Access Protections (version 153). This prevents the a request originating from a domain associated with a public IP to reach more private address networks. This recent feature, currently existing in Chrome and Firefox, isn’t yet generalized to all browsers.  

Impact 

The target is a developer. That means the compromised machine holds live credentials, source code, and trusted access to internal infrastructure. 

In practice: AWS keys, SSH keys, GitHub tokens in VS Code’s secret storage, active cloud CLI sessions, VPN tunnels open to the internal network, and push access to production branches would be likely available: a payload that runs as the developer inherits all of it silently. 

The delivery requires no interaction beyond visiting a page, it’s a drive-by attack. 

Recommendations 

Developers using this tool should update to the latest available version. The fix ships after 1.1.4 (version 1.2.0 and later).  

In addition, it’s recommended to regularly audit which servers are listening on loopback. 

Use authentication in your MCP servers and enforce governance to control which MCP server is running in your network and be able to remove it if necessary. 

Regarding MCP development more specifically: 

Use middleware that enforce validation (like createMcpExpressApp Since SDK v1.23.0). 

Validate file path inputs. Reject UNC paths and remote schemes before passing any path to an execution primitive. 

Disclosure Timeline 

• May 19: Issue reported to Microsoft  

• May 24: Fix shipped in commit 86776b2, released as version 1.2.0 

• September 25: Public disclosure (this blogpost) 

Conclusion 

AI-assisted development is quietly rewriting the developer machine’s threat model. To give an agent useful capabilities, extensions expose local servers, wire in execution primitives, and grant broad access to the filesystem and the debugger.  

Each of these is a reasonable engineering decision on its own. Together, they turn the workstation into a dense collection of automation endpoints, and those same endpoints, built to be driven by a trusted agent, are equally drivable by an attacker who reaches them. The productivity story and the attack surface story are the same story. 

Developer environments are where source code, signing keys, pipeline credentials, and cloud sessions converge; compromising one is often a shorter path to production than attacking production directly.  

This vulnerability was not sophisticated. The techniques here are not new; what’s new is the rate at which capable, unvetted local servers are being deployed onto high-value machines, and the growing ability of AI agents to discover and chain weaknesses autonomously. 

The post From Debugging to Code Execution: RCE in Microsoft DevLabs’ DebugMCP? appeared first on Blog.

The 2026 edition of the the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications, published by the OWASP GenAI Security Project on August 3, 2026, is easy to skim past. No entry was dropped and no new category was introduced, so at a glance it can read as housekeeping. It is worth a closer look than that. Eight of the ten entries changed position, and one was renamed and widened in scope, which changes what it asks of the teams working against it.

When a framework adds or drops entries, it is usually telling you the threat surface itself has changed. This edition did something more specific. The categories held, but their order was substantially revised and one of them grew, which suggests the original naming was sound while the relative priority had drifted from what teams were meeting in production. Read the movements together and a pattern shows up.

The short version: the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2026 kept all ten categories but moved eight of them. Excessive Agency climbed from LLM06 to LLM03, Unbounded Consumption from LLM10 to LLM06 and Misinformation from LLM09 to LLM07, while Improper Output Handling fell from LLM05 to LLM10. System Prompt Leakage was renamed Hidden Context Exposure and broadened to cover everything an application places in front of the model without the user seeing it.

What changed in the OWASP LLM Top 10 2026

The table below sets the 2026 order against the 2025 one, listed by 2026 rank.

Prompt Injection and Sensitive Information Disclosure held first and second, which surprised nobody. Every other entry sits somewhere new, and the rest of this piece is about why the direction of those moves matters more than the individual rankings.

Excessive Agency and Unbounded Consumption: the climbers describe applications, not models

The two biggest climbers are the same kind of risk wearing different clothes. Excessive Agency is about what an application is permitted to do once a model is driving it: which tools it can call, which systems it can reach, how far one decision can travel before a human sees it. Unbounded Consumption is about what happens when that same application meets traffic engineered to abuse it, producing no malware and no traditional indicators, just an enormous bill. Neither is a property of the model. Both are properties of an application in production.

The biggest faller makes the same argument from the other end. Improper Output Handling dropped five places, and not because it stopped happening. It fell because it is the entry the industry already knew how to answer. Rendering untrusted output safely, refusing to execute what came back from an untrusted source, treating downstream consumers as a boundary: application security teams have been practicing that discipline for twenty years. The skill transferred. The novelty did not survive contact with people who already had the muscle.

Setting the renamed entry aside, the three entries that each slipped a place have something in common too. Supply Chain, Data and Model Poisoning, and Vector and Embedding Weaknesses are all risks you address before the application serves its first request, in procurement, in the training pipeline, in how the knowledge base was assembled and secured. They did not become less serious. They became less urgent relative to the things that only exist once the system is live.

Misinformation climbing two places fits once you ask who pays for it. A model that invents a refund policy is a quality problem in a lab and a liability problem in production, and a Canadian tribunal has already held Air Canada responsible for what its chatbot told a customer (Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024). That entry did not move because models got worse. It moved because the consequences arrived.

Read together: the entries that climbed are the ones that only exist while the application is running. The entries that fell are handled before deployment, or handled by controls the industry already had.

From System Prompt Leakage to Hidden Context Exposure: the rename nobody is discussing

System Prompt Leakage became Hidden Context Exposure, and it is the most consequential edit in the document.

A system prompt is one specific thing: the instruction block sitting at the top of a conversation, defining the model’s role and its rules. Hidden context is everything else the application quietly places in front of the model without the user ever seeing it. Retrieved documents. Tool definitions. Prior turns held in memory. Configuration a developer assumed was private because no interface displays it.

The rename takes the entry from one field to an entire supply of runtime input, and it lands the same point the reordering makes. What the application feeds the model has become the attack surface. That is a materially bigger claim than the 2025 wording made, and any content or tooling still describing this entry as system prompt protection is now describing a fraction of it.

How to read an OWASP LLM Top 10 coverage claim, including ours

A reordering like this produces a wave of updated coverage claims, and some of them will describe protection across the whole list. Those claims are worth examining rather than accepting, and one question does most of the work: which control fires, inline, at runtime, for this specific entry?

Ask it of the entries that just fell. A poisoned model dependency arrives before a single request is served. At the moment of compromise there is no traffic to inspect, no prompt to score, no response to hold. Something does address that risk, but that something is a procurement process, a posture scan or a signed build pipeline. The same is true of a poorly governed vector store. These are real controls and they matter; they are simply not the same category of thing as a runtime control, and they usually sit with a different team and a different budget.

This is not a criticism of any product. It is the shape of the problem. Runtime protection covers runtime problems. When you meet a claim spanning all ten entries, the useful follow-up is to ask which of the ten are covered by inline enforcement, which by a scanner, which by a partner integration, and which by a policy document, and then to decide whether that composition is what you thought you were buying. A vendor who can answer that cleanly is telling you something about how they think. So is one who cannot.

Apply the same question to us. We would rather you did.

Where we stand against the 2026 order

Thales Imperva AI Application Security addresses five entries with runtime enforcement. In 2026 numbering, they are Prompt Injection (LLM01), Sensitive Information Disclosure (LLM02), Unbounded Consumption (LLM06), Hidden Context Exposure (LLM08) and Improper Output Handling (LLM10).

Two of those five moved this year, and the moves cut in opposite directions. Unbounded Consumption climbed four places, which raises the profile of a control we already ship. Improper Output Handling fell five, which lowers the profile of another one we already ship. Reporting the first without the second would be the kind of selective reading this piece is arguing against.

Two of those five are also where our next work lands, and they are connected. Hidden Context Exposure now covers tool definitions, and Excessive Agency is the question of what an application is permitted to do once a model is driving it. We are adding tool call guardrails that check whether the specific tool being called is permitted, and the tool definitions themselves are what we look at next. Today we detect and monitor tool calls. Checking them against what is allowed is the step after that, and it is better to say so plainly than to let a coverage table imply it already exists.

The other five entries need different tools, and we would rather name them than imply otherwise. Supply Chain and Data and Model Poisoning are build-time and procurement problems. Vector and Embedding Weaknesses belongs with the data security controls sitting in front of the retrieval pipeline. Misinformation is evaluation and grounding work. Excessive Agency is the one to watch: it is the entry moving fastest toward runtime, it is where the agentic controls across this whole category are heading, and at number three it is now the highest-ranked risk that most security programs have no inline answer for at all.

The list caught up with agentic AI

In a recent piece we argued that the LLM Top 10 had been the warm-up, and that the frameworks describing agentic and MCP risk had already been published while most security programs were still resourcing against the first list. The 2026 edition is that argument told from inside the framework itself.

Excessive Agency at number three is an agentic risk sitting near the top of an LLM list. Hidden Context Exposure is the retrieval and tool layer being named as attack surface. Neither entry is about a model producing text. Both are about a system taking action on the strength of what it was fed. The list has started describing applications that act, which is the same shift the newer frameworks were built for.

A practical exercise for this quarter: take the four entries that moved most, and for each one write down which control in your own environment would fire while the attack was in progress, not after it appeared in a report. The gaps in that list are what the 2026 reordering is pointing at.

Thales’s Imperva AI Application Security is purpose-built runtime protection for AI applications, agents, and the ecosystems behind them, deployable in-app, at the Imperva edge, or via API, standalone or as part of Imperva’s unified application security platform. Our white paper, Beyond the LLM Top 10, maps the agentic and MCP threat surface against the published frameworks.

Frequently asked questions about the OWASP LLM Top 10 2026

What changed in the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2026?

The 2026 edition, published by the OWASP GenAI Security Project on August 3, 2026, added and removed no categories. Eight of the ten entries changed position: Excessive Agency rose from LLM06 to LLM03, Unbounded Consumption from LLM10 to LLM06 and Misinformation from LLM09 to LLM07, while Improper Output Handling fell from LLM05 to LLM10. Prompt Injection (LLM01) and Sensitive Information Disclosure (LLM02) held their places, and System Prompt Leakage was renamed Hidden Context Exposure.

What is Hidden Context Exposure in the OWASP LLM Top 10?

Hidden Context Exposure (LLM08 in 2026) replaces System Prompt Leakage (LLM07 in 2025). It widens the entry from the system prompt alone to everything an application places in front of the model without the user seeing it: retrieved documents, tool definitions, prior turns held in memory and configuration a developer assumed was private.

Why did Excessive Agency move up to LLM03?

Excessive Agency describes what an application is permitted to do once a model is driving it: which tools it can call, which systems it can reach and how far one decision can travel before a human sees it. It climbed three places, from LLM06 to LLM03, as agentic applications that take actions moved into production.

Which OWASP LLM Top 10 risks can runtime protection address?

Runtime controls act on live traffic: prompts, responses and tool calls. Supply Chain and Data and Model Poisoning are build-time and procurement problems, Vector and Embedding Weaknesses belongs with data security controls in front of the retrieval pipeline, and Misinformation is evaluation and grounding work. When a vendor claims coverage of all ten entries, ask which are covered by inline enforcement, which by a scanner, which by a partner integration and which by a policy document.

Read more in our white paper: Beyond the LLM Top 10.

The post OWASP LLM Top 10 2026: Every Move Points the Same Direction appeared first on Blog.

Understanding the StyleSmuggler Vulnerability 

StyleSmuggler is an improper neutralization vulnerability in Magento’s template engine. Attackers can abuse the processing of styles properties to smuggle malicious PHP code past existing safeguards and into content that Magento later renders. 

The attack occurs in two stages. First, the attacker sends a crafted request that causes malicious PHP code to be stored within Magento-generated content, such as a failure report. The attacker then triggers application functionality that renders the poisoned content, including Magento’s standard failed-payment email process. When the template is rendered, the injected PHP executes on the server. 

No authentication or user interaction is required. The recipient does not need to open the failed-payment email, and the attack can succeed even if the email is never delivered. Successful exploitation gives the attacker arbitrary code execution in the context of the Magento application, potentially enabling malware deployment, persistent access, credential theft, payment-data compromise, or further movement within the environment. The vulnerability affects supported versions across multiple Adobe Commerce and Magento Open Source branches, including systems that had received recent security patches. 

Observed post-exploitation activity has included the deployment of persistent Linux backdoors disguised as legitimate processes such as kworker, fc-cache, and chronyd. Researchers have also identified a separate campaign using the vulnerability to install a PHP web shell, demonstrating that multiple threat actors are already attempting to operationalize StyleSmuggler. 

What Imperva Has Seen So Far 

Imperva has observed exploitation activity targeting websites across 15 countries, indicating that StyleSmuggler scanning and attack attempts are already geographically widespread. The United States accounts for 25% of targeted sites, followed by Mexico at 15.9%, Spain at 14%, and Singapore at 13.6%. 

Retail websites represent the largest share of observed targets at 39.5%, consistent with Magento’s extensive use across ecommerce environments. Lifestyle sites account for another 19.5% of targets, followed by healthcare at 17.9%. 

Attack traffic has primarily automated attacks. While client identifiers can be modified or spoofed, their prevalence is consistent with attackers using scripted tools to automate scanning and exploitation rather than interacting through conventional web browsers. 

Imperva protections are actively identifying and blocking malicious requests associated with the StyleSmuggler attack chain before they can reach protected applications. 

Conclusion 

CVE-2026-75650 poses an immediate risk: it enables unauthenticated remote code execution, has already been weaponized, and can give attackers direct control over ecommerce servers. Adobe Commerce and Magento Open Source administrators should apply the VULN-39341 hotfix immediately and investigate potentially exposed systems for signs of compromise. As exploitation began before a patch was available, applying the hotfix does not remove malware or persistence mechanisms that may already be present. 

Imperva Cloud WAF and On-Prem WAF customers are protected against exploitation attempts associated with StyleSmuggler. Imperva will continue monitoring the campaign as attackers refine their payloads and additional activity emerges. 

The post Imperva Customers Protected Against StyleSmuggler (CVE-2026-75650) in Adobe Commerce and Magento Open Source appeared first on Blog.

The honest complication is that most enterprises do not live in a single-vendor world. You may run your own internal PKI. You may have standardized on a dedicated Certificate Lifecycle Management (CLM) platform. You may answer to compliance mandates that dictate exactly which Certificate Authority issues your certificates, and how. In those environments, visibility and control across every certificate matters as much as automating the renewals themselves. Until now, connecting those established workflows to Imperva meant manual effort, and manual effort is exactly what shrinking lifecycles no longer allow.

Today we are introducing the SSL Integration Center: an integration framework connecting Imperva Cloud WAF with leading Certificate Lifecycle Management platforms. It launches with its first supported integration, the DigiCert Trust Lifecycle Manager (TLM) Agent.

Your CLM stays in charge for certificate lifecycle management

The SSL Integration Center is not a new product or another console to learn. It is an integration framework, and the experience runs from the side you already live in: you configure the integration from within your CLM platform, and your CLM remains the place where certificates are managed. Once connected, two things happen from there. You can see all of your Imperva-managed domains and the SSL coverage status of each one, directly in your certificate workflow. And the complete certificate lifecycle cadence, issuance, renewal and deployment to Imperva, runs automatically under the policies your CLM already enforces. Imperva’s role is to integrate smoothly into the workflow you have, supplying application and SSL-coverage visibility and taking automated deployment off your hands. DigiCert is the first integration, and it sets the pattern for the CLM vendors that follow.

Thales-managed or customer-managed: your choice

Many organizations choose Thales-managed certificates because that removes the operational load of provisioning, renewal, monitoring and deployment in one move, and for them nothing changes. Others cannot adopt a fully managed approach: compliance requirements, PKI investments, established CLM platforms and governance policies often require a customer to keep control of their own certificate ecosystem. The Integration Center is built for that second group. You keep your CA, your CLM and your lifecycle processes, exactly where they run today, and Imperva plugs into them. Governance stays yours, and so does the console.

Starting with a leader: DigiCert Trust Lifecycle Manager

DigiCert TLM gives enterprises one place to discover, govern, automate and see certificates across cloud, hybrid and on-premises environments. It builds an organization-wide certificate inventory, enforces consistent cryptographic policy, and replaces surprise expirations with automated renewals. A useful way to think about the pairing: TLM is the system of record for your certificates, and the Integration Center is the delivery route into the applications Imperva protects.

With this integration, the DigiCert TLM Agent automates certificate issuance, renewal and deployment straight into Imperva. Under the hood, a post-enrollment script securely uploads the certificate chain and private key to Imperva through the Provisioning API, so a certificate governed in TLM arrives at your protected applications without anyone touching it. It runs on both Linux and Windows.

The value of that automation is documented. In a commissioned Total Economic Impact study, Forrester Consulting found organizations standardizing on DigiCert ONE, the platform behind Trust Lifecycle Manager, achieved 96% fewer outages from expired or misconfigured certificates, and a 312% return on investment over three years.

Source: The Total Economic Impact of DigiCert ONE (July 2025), a commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of DigiCert. Results are based on a composite organization derived from customer interviews. Forrester does not endorse DigiCert or its offerings.

How the DigiCert TLM integration works

• Govern in DigiCert TLM. Your certificate is issued and managed centrally, under the policies your organization already enforces.
• Automate with the TLM Agent. A post-enrollment script runs on issuance or renewal and packages the certificate chain and private key.
• Deploy through the Provisioning API. The script securely uploads the certificate to your Imperva cloud account and puts it to work protecting your applications. No manual upload. No missed renewal window.

What this means for your team

• Continuous, compliant TLS protection. Issuance, renewal and deployment of custom certificates run without manual intervention, so your encryption stays current as lifecycles shrink.
• Full bring-your-own-CA automation. If you use your own Certificate Authority and custom certificates, the entire lifecycle can now run end to end.
• Fewer outages, less toil. Removing the manual steps removes the TLS outages that come from missed renewals, and frees your team from certificate babysitting.
• Your Imperva estate, visible from your CLM. Once connected, your Imperva-managed domains and the SSL coverage status of each appear inside your certificate workflow, so DigiCert’s organisation-wide discovery and Imperva’s application coverage read as one picture, without switching consoles.

A certificate automation ecosystem that grows with you

Shorter certificate lifecycles are the new baseline, and they reward the organizations that automate. The SSL Integration Center makes that automation work on your terms: the CA you trust, the CLM platform you have standardized on, the compliance posture you are held to. It sits alongside Thales’s own SSL management capabilities, including certificate visibility, site coverage monitoring, notifications and real-time SSL health monitoring. DigiCert Trust Lifecycle Manager is the first integration and it will not be the last; each CLM vendor added becomes one more certificate workflow that arrives at your applications without a human in the renewal loop.

That certificate counting down in your estate? Under TLM and the Integration Center, its renewal has already happened by the time you would have thought to check.

It is also one thread in a wider fabric. Imperva integrates across the tools enterprises already run, from SIEM and ITSM platforms to API gateways, scanners and cloud providers, through the Imperva Technology Alliance Program. If your certificate stack is the workflow we meet today, the rest of your stack has a meeting point there too.

Get started with the SSL Integration Center

If you are a Thales Imperva Cloud WAF customer using DigiCert Trust Lifecycle Manager, you can configure the integration from your TLM console today. For step-by-step setup, see the Imperva documentation on integrating custom certificates and the DigiCert + Imperva integration overview.

The post Bring Your Own CA: Introducing the Thales Imperva SSL Integration Center, Featuring DigiCert Trust Lifecycle Manager appeared first on Blog.

When the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications arrived, it did the industry a real service. It gave security teams a stable, vendor-neutral vocabulary for a threat surface that was moving too fast to describe. Prompt injection, sensitive information disclosure, system prompt leakage, improper output handling, unbounded consumption: five of those ten account for the bulk of what actually shows up in red-team exercises and public incidents.

Every framework earns its keep by naming what defenders are already fighting. Which is exactly why the next part matters: the next lists are not coming. They have already arrived. Most security programs simply have not caught up with them yet.

The three OWASP lists that now define AI security

Three published OWASP lists now cover the AI stack end to end. Together they are the checklist most security programs are not yet resourced against:

OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025) – the conversation layer. Prompt injection, sensitive information disclosure, system prompt leakage, improper output handling and unbounded consumption are the five that dominate real incidents.

OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications (2026) – the systems that act. Released 9 December 2025 by the OWASP GenAI Security Project. Ten risks, prefixed ASI, covering what happens when AI stops answering and starts doing.

OWASP MCP Top 10 (MCP01:2025-MCP10:2025) – the connective tissue. Currently in beta (Phase 3, beta release and pilot testing), covering the Model Context Protocol layer that wires assistants to real systems and data.

The OWASP agentic and MCP Top 10 lists are published. The budgets are not.

In December 2025, the OWASP GenAI Security Project published the OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications (2026), covering the risks that appear when AI stops answering questions and starts taking actions: agent goal hijack (ASI01), tool misuse and exploitation (ASI02), identity and privilege abuse (ASI03), memory and context poisoning (ASI06), insecure inter-agent communication (ASI07) and rogue agents (ASI10).

Alongside it, OWASP’s MCP Top 10 project is codifying the risks of the Model Context Protocol, the standard that connects AI assistants to real systems and data. It is a young list, currently in beta – Phase 3, beta release and pilot testing, with entries carrying the MCP01:2025 through MCP10:2025 designation – and it is already one of the most useful documents in AI security, because it names the attack patterns defenders are meeting right now. Three of them deserve particular attention.

Command injection and execution (MCP05). An AI agent executes system commands built from untrusted input, without proper validation. An adversary who compromises the toolchain gets their work carried forward by the agent itself, with the agent’s legitimate permissions. The prompt was never touched. The model behaved exactly as designed. The compromise came in through the tools.

Tool poisoning (MCP03). The model is handed a list of tools it may call, and it trusts their definitions and their outputs. Poison either one and you have redirected the application’s behavior without a single suspicious token appearing in the conversation.

Insufficient authentication and authorization (MCP07). MCP servers, tools, and agents interacting without properly verifying identity or enforcing access controls. Who is allowed to call this tool? Which agent may delegate to which? In most environments today the answer is: whoever asks. That is not a vulnerability in a model. It is a missing identity layer for machines.

One more entry is worth a mention because it will sound familiar to anyone tracking shadow IT: shadow MCP servers (MCP09), the unapproved deployments running outside security governance, often on default credentials. The shadow AI problem now has an OWASP number. For the practical exposures behind these entries, see MCP Server Security: The Blind Spot in Your AI Stack.

None of these are theoretical. All of them get easier as organizations wire agents into more systems. And none of them have the household-name status that prompt injection now enjoys, which means the frameworks are ahead of most security programs’ resourcing. That is a new and uncomfortable position: the industry usually waits years for its threat lists. This time the lists arrived before the budgets.

History does not repeat, but it files tickets

We have watched this movie before. Monolithic applications got the OWASP Top 10. API-based applications got the API Security Top 10, because the attacks changed shape when the architecture did. AI applications and agents are the next architecture, and this time the pattern completed itself faster than ever: the LLM Top 10 for the conversation layer, the Agentic Top 10 for the systems that act, and the MCP Top 10 for the connective tissue between them.

So the catch-up question for security teams is no longer “what threats might emerge?” It is “which published OWASP entries is my program actually resourced against?” And the question for vendors sharpens the same way. Not “do you block prompt injection?” but “walk me through the MCP Top 10 and tell me what you see, and what you can control, beyond the prompt.”

The LLM Top 10 taught the industry to take AI threats seriously. The warm-up worked. The event has already started.

Frequently asked questions about the OWASP AI Top 10 lists

What is the OWASP LLM Top 10? The OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications is a vendor-neutral list of the ten most critical security risks in LLM-based applications, maintained by the OWASP GenAI Security Project. Prompt injection, sensitive information disclosure, system prompt leakage, improper output handling and unbounded consumption account for most of what shows up in red-team exercises and public incidents.

Is there an OWASP Top 10 for AI agents? Yes. The OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications (2026) was released on 9 December 2025. Its ten entries carry the ASI prefix and run from agent goal hijack (ASI01) to rogue agents (ASI10).

What is the OWASP MCP Top 10? A list codifying the security risks of the Model Context Protocol, the standard connecting AI assistants to real systems and data. Entries run MCP01:2025 to MCP10:2025 and include tool poisoning (MCP03), command injection and execution (MCP05), insufficient authentication and authorization (MCP07) and shadow MCP servers (MCP09). The project is in beta.

How many of the OWASP LLM Top 10 does Imperva address? Five out of the box: prompt injection and jailbreaking, sensitive information disclosure, system prompt leakage, improper output handling and unbounded consumption.

What should I ask an AI security vendor? Not “do you block prompt injection?” but “walk me through the MCP Top 10 and tell me what you see, and what you can control, beyond the prompt.”

Thales’s Imperva AI Application Security addresses five of the OWASP LLM Top 10 out of the box. We believe the industry’s next frameworks will be written about agents and toolchains. Thales announced the AI Security Fabric in December 2025, with an MCP security gateway and runtime access control for agentic AI interactions on the 2026 roadmap. Our white paper, Beyond the LLM Top 10, maps that terrain.

The post The OWASP LLM Top 10 Was the Warm-Up: What Comes Next appeared first on Blog.

This is Imperva API Security’s 2026 Token & Authentication Risk Report: a year-over-year look at how organizations actually handle JSON Web Tokens (JWTs), Basic Authentication, and token lifecycles, based on real detection data — not survey answers — across 1,104 customer environments and 32,725 live API endpoints. Some of what we found is good news. Some of them should genuinely worry you. And one finding, buried in a few layers beneath the headline numbers, is the reason we think most organizations are fixing the wrong things first.

What We Measured, and Why It’s Worth Trusting

This is the second year of this benchmark, which matters more than it might seem. One year of data tells you what’s happening. Two years of consistent measurement tells you what’s changing — and change is where the real signal lives.

We tracked five risk categories, unchanged from last year’s methodology: whether JWTs contain sensitive data they shouldn’t, whether they’re signed with weak algorithms, whether they’re issued with excessively long lifespans, whether Basic Authentication with raw credentials is still in use, and whether tokens keep granting access after they should have expired. Every number below is a share of real detections, not a projection.

Through CVE-2026-17106, an attacker-controlled container could turn a routine file copy into two powerful outcomes:

Host file overwrite: creating or replacing any file writable by the user running docker cp, including shell configuration, executables, SSH configuration, source code, and persistence mechanisms.

Code execution: Executing attacker-controlled code as the logged-in user on macOS or, when docker cp runs with elevated privileges on Linux, achieving root code execution immediately after the command completes by overwriting the runc binary.

The exploit chains two weaknesses in Docker’s archive pipeline: a filesystem race that lets a running container produce an inconsistent tar archive, and an extraction flaw that allows the Docker CLI to follow a planted symlink outside the intended destination.

Together, these weaknesses turn the user’s own Docker CLI into a write primitive. The attacker controls the container and its files, the CLI supplies access to the host filesystem.

The docker cp command is routinely used to retrieve build artifacts, test results, logs, and forensic evidence from containers. This makes the vulnerability particularly relevant to CI systems, developer workstations, privileged automation, and incident-response workflows. In the last case, simply collecting evidence from a compromised container could activate the payload waiting inside it.

The impact also reaches AI-agent workflows. Docker Sandboxes uses sbx cp to move files between an isolated agent environment and the host. Docker Sandboxes 0.38.0, released August 6, identifies and fixes a “destination-escape flaw in sbx cp copy-out” under CVE-2026-17106. This means retrieving an artifact produced inside an untrusted or compromised coding-agent sandbox could expose the host to the same class of destination escape.

From a Simple Copy to a Host Write

The command that started this research could hardly look more ordinary:

docker cp container:/path/to/file.txt ./file.txt

The source is inside the container. The destination is chosen by the user. The expected security boundary seems obvious: Docker should write to ./file.txt and nowhere else.

But docker cp is not a direct filesystem-to-filesystem copy.

When copying from a container, the Docker daemon walks the container’s live filesystem and turns the selected path into a tar archive. The Docker CLI receives that archive and extracts it on the client machine.

This architecture creates a powerful connection between two security domains. The container controls the archive contents, while the local CLI performs the resulting filesystem operations with the permissions of the person or process that invoked docker cp.

For this design to remain safe, Docker needs to preserve two properties:

1. The daemon must produce a coherent archive from the container’s filesystem.
2. The CLI must confine every extracted object to the destination selected by the user.

We found a way to break both properties in the same copy operation.

Impact

The vulnerability provides an arbitrary file create or overwrite primitive within the permissions of the Docker CLI process.

The malicious container does not automatically inherit root privileges from dockerd, and exploitation requires a user or automated system to invoke docker cp against the attacker-controlled path.

But the final write occurs on the machine running the CLI, with the authority of that user-not with the permissions of the process inside the container.

We validated the exploit on Linux with Docker Engine 29.6.1 and on macOS with Docker Desktop 4.81.0 (232925).

Developer Compromise on macOS

Docker Desktop runs the daemon inside a Linux virtual machine, but a container-to-local docker cp operation is extracted by the CLI running on macOS.

This means the archive crosses the VM boundary before the vulnerable operation occurs. The symlink is followed by a process on the Mac, and its target is interpreted in the Mac’s filesystem namespace.

A malicious container could therefore target files such as shell startup scripts, user-level executables, SSH configuration, source trees, cloud configuration, or persistence mechanisms under ~/Library/LaunchAgents. Overwriting a shell startup file could execute the attacker’s code the next time the user opens a terminal.

The container does not need to escape the Docker Desktop VM directly. It convinces the local CLI to perform the write on its behalf.

Root Code Execution on Linux

On Linux, the daemon and CLI commonly run on the same host. The write still carries the CLI user’s permissions.

For an ordinary user, the attacker can reach files writable by that account. If an administrator, CI worker, or maintenance process invokes sudo docker cp, the operation can reach root-owned system paths.

In our proof of concept, we replaced /usr/bin/runc with a shell script. A later Docker lifecycle operation executed the replaced binary and created a marker file as root.

The exploit did not obtain root from the Docker daemon. The copy already had enough authority to replace runc, and the later execution converted that file write into root code execution.

The Archive That Described Two Filesystems

The first part of the chain was in the archive producer.

Both the Moby and Docker CLI source trees we reviewed used github.com/moby/go-archive v0.2.0. For a container-to-local copy, Moby’s containerArchivePath creates a tarballer and runs it inside the container filesystem:

Source: Moby containerArchivePath, Docker Engine 29.6.1, lines 76–82.

Docker locks the container object while the archive is read, but that lock protects Docker’s internal state. It does not freeze processes running inside the container.

Those processes can continue renaming files, replacing directories, and creating symlinks while the daemon walks the source tree.

The tarballer performs that walk with filepath.WalkDir:

Source: moby/go-archive v0.2.0 archive walk, lines 691–802.

WalkDir reads a directory entry and records its type. If the entry is a directory, the walker plans to descend into it.

The callback then passes the pathname to addTarFile, which looks it up again with Lstat to create the tar header:

Source: moby/go-archive v0.2.0 addTarFile, lines 295–317.

The same pathname now answers two different questions at two different times:

Traversal decision: is this entry a directory that WalkDir should enter?

Archive metadata: is this entry a file, directory, or symlink that should be written to the tar stream?

If the path changes between those observations, the two answers no longer need to agree.

Turning the Race into a Reliable Primitive

In our proof of concept, /watched/file.txt is intentionally deceptive. An LD_PRELOAD interposer makes it appear to be a regular file to processes inside the container by redirecting exact accesses to a hidden backing file, /watched/.file.txt.regular. The Docker daemon, however, sees the underlying file.txt path as a directory and can walk the attacker-controlled tree beneath it.

The walker initially sees the following directory:

After WalkDir records escape as a directory, the attacker moves it aside and replaces it with a staged symlink:

The switch requires only two rename operations, winning a filesystem race blindly would be unreliable, so we gave the container a clock.

Our proof of concept places a large file immediately before the pivot directory and monitors it with filesystem notifications. When the daemon opens that file, the attacker knows the walk has reached the right location. The large file widens the timing window, and the notification signals when to perform the two renames.

What begins as a race becomes a repeatable sequence.

After the switch, addTarFile sees a symlink and emits a symlink header for file.txt/escape. Control then returns to WalkDir, whose earlier directory entry still says that escape is a directory. The walker descends through the same pathname and adds a child beneath the symlink’s archive name.

The resulting tar stream contains two entries:

Each entry is understandable on its own. Together, they describe two different moments in the source filesystem: escape is represented as a symlink, while its child is represented as though escape were still a directory.

At this point, the container has produced an inconsistent archive. That alone should not be enough to write outside the destination. The client still controls extraction and can reject the dangerous sequence.

It did not.

The Extractor Checked One Path and Created Another

For a copy from a container, the Docker CLI eventually reaches archive.CopyTo:

Source: moby/go-archive v0.2.0 CopyTo, lines 418–437.

Neither option confines traversal through an intermediate symlink. The vulnerable symlink handling attempted to perform its own containment check:

Source: moby/go-archive v0.2.0 symlink extraction, lines 480–492.

The validation and the filesystem operation use different values.

The containment check validates targetPath, a path constructed with filepath.Join. The subsequent os.Symlink call receives the original hdr.Linkname from the archive.

For an extraction path of /safe/output/file.txt/escape and a link target of /usr/bin, the validation evaluates:

That constructed path appears to remain under /safe/output, so the check approves it. Docker then gives the original absolute target to the kernel:

The check approves one path. The filesystem creates another.

The same condition has an additional weakness: string prefixes do not represent path containment. A path such as /safe/output-elsewhere also begins with /safe/output. Our chain already had what it needed from the checked-value-versus-used-value mismatch.

The extractor then processes the child entry, file.txt/escape/runc.

Docker cleans the archive name, joins it to the destination, and checks for a lexical ../ escape, but the child entry contains no ../. As text, it remains beneath the destination.

The previous tar entry has changed what the pathname means on disk. Before creating the child, the vulnerable extractor does not re-establish confinement against the resolved target:

Source: moby/go-archive v0.2.0 addTarFile, lines 295–317.

When the file is created, the kernel follows escape -> /usr/bin. The attacker’s bytes land at /usr/bin/runc on the Docker client rather than under /safe/output.

The full chain is:

1. WalkDir records escape as a directory.
2. The container replaces it with an absolute symlink.
3. addTarFile emits the symlink into the tar stream.
4. WalkDir descends using its earlier directory type and emits a child entry.
5. The CLI validates a constructed target but creates the original absolute symlink.
6. The CLI extracts the child through that symlink and writes outside the destination.

One stale directory entry and one ineffective containment check were enough to turn docker cp into a host write.

From Host Write to Host Compromise

At this point, the copy operation is no longer confined to the destination chosen by the user. The attacker-controlled container has gained a write primitive on the Docker client, with the permissions of the process running docker cp.

What happens next depends on those permissions. A copy launched by a developer could target user-writable startup files, shell configuration, source code, or persistence mechanisms. If the command runs as root, as is common in automation and some Linux environments, the same primitive could reach system executables and privileged configuration, turning the file write into root code execution.

The vulnerability simply prepares the malicious filesystem and waits. The trigger may be a developer retrieving a build artifact, a CI job collecting test results, or an incident responder copying evidence from a container they already suspect is compromised.

In each case, the operation intended to take data safely out of the container becomes the step that carries the attack back onto the host.

Mitigations

Users should upgrade to Docker Engine and CLI 29.7.2 or later, and Docker Desktop 4.86.0 or later.

Where upgrading is not immediately possible:

• Avoid copying from running, untrusted, or compromised containers onto a sensitive client.
• Stop the container before copying. Docker supports copying from a stopped container, preventing a live process from performing the race used in this chain.
• Avoid sudo docker cp and root-run copy automation.
• Run the Docker CLI with the least privilege required for the workflow.
• Retrieve data from suspicious containers using a disposable account, VM, or similarly isolated environment.

Stopping the container blocks the producer race demonstrated here. It does not replace safe extraction: any archive originating from an untrusted source should still be treated as hostile input.

Conclusion

Container boundaries are not defined only by namespaces, virtual machines, or the Docker daemon. They also depend on the client-side tools that move data across those boundaries.

docker cp connects a live, attacker-controlled filesystem to an extractor running with the user’s authority. That design requires both sides of the pipeline to preserve a strict contract: the archive must be coherent, and every extracted object must remain inside the destination.

CVE-2026-17106 broke that contract. The daemon observed one pathname as two different objects, producing a symlink followed by its apparent child. The CLI then validated one path, created another, and allowed the child entry to cross onto the client filesystem.

The most important lesson is simple: archive extraction is a security boundary. Path normalization and string-prefix checks cannot enforce that boundary once symlinks and concurrent filesystem changes are involved. Filesystem operations must be rooted so that the kernel, not a string comparison, guarantees where the write can land.

We responsibly disclosed the vulnerability to Docker and delayed publication several times to align disclosure with a usable patch. We would like to thank Docker’s security and engineering teams for investigating the report, coordinating the CVE, and working through the regressions introduced by the initial fix.

Responsible Disclosure Timeline

April 11, 2026 – We reported the vulnerability to Docker with technical details and reproduction information.

April 14, 2026 – Docker acknowledged receipt and began reviewing the report.

April 15, 2026 – Docker confirmed the behavior as a valid finding and explained its assessment of the client-side privilege boundary.

July 10, 2026 – The initial 90-day disclosure period elapsed without a public patch. We requested a concrete remediation, advisory, and publication schedule.

July 14, 2026 – Docker described two remediation tracks: extraction-library hardening as the primary security fix and source-walk hardening as follow-up work. We agreed to delay publication while the fixes were prepared.

July 24, 2026 – Docker provided CVE-2026-17106 / GHSA-hfg8-hc9c-6c3h and targeted an August 3 coordinated release.

July 27, 2026 – Docker confirmed that the source-walk TOCTOU would not receive a separate CVE and would instead be addressed as defense-in-depth hardening.

July 30, 2026 – moby/go-archive v0.3.0 and Docker Engine/CLI 29.7.0 shipped the extraction fix.

July 31, 2026 – Docker reported significant functional regressions caused by the initial hardening and requested a final extension to August 10. Follow-up go-archive and Engine releases addressed the regressions.

August 1, 2026 – We agreed to extend coordinated disclosure to August 10.

August 6, 2026 – Docker Sandboxes 0.38.0 shipped a fix for a destination-escape flaw in sbx cp copy-out under CVE-2026-17106. Docker also confirmed that the Docker Desktop update remained scheduled for August 10.

August 10, 2026 – Docker released Docker Desktop 4.86.0, bundling Docker Engine 29.7.2 and delivering the corresponding Docker Desktop fix.

The post CopyEscape: Taking Over Docker Hosts with docker cp appeared first on Blog.