Skip to content
Fencer Intel
critical 9.9

CVE-2026-61728 json

SOCFortress CoPilot: Stored comment and SOC-field XSS permits privileged account takeover

published 4mo ago modified 6d ago also EUVD-2026-113993 , GHSA-8hqj-cqcc-5f6w

Unreviewed: the maintainers' own advisory

Published by the maintainers on their GitHub repository socfortress/CoPilot. GitHub has not reviewed it into the GitHub Advisory Database, so the affected packages and versions are the maintainers' word. Read the full advisory on GitHub.

cvss
9.9
version 3.1, CNA
cisa kev
Not listed
not in CISA's catalog
epss
0.5%
EPSS 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days, percentile 40%
public exploits
0
none known

Summary

SOCFortress CoPilot focuses on providing a single pane of glass for all your security operations needs. In affected snapshots preceding the respective 0.1.70 and 0.1.76 sink repairs, portal users, including `customer_user`, can submit stored markup through `POST /api/incidents/db_operations/alert/comment`. In `customer-portal/src/components/alerts/AlertDetails/AlertComment.vue`, `commentHtml` replaces newlines in `comment.comment` but passes the result to `v-html` without escaping or sanitizing HTML. When another user views the poisoned alert, stored script executes on the application origin; the same unsanitized rendering pattern affects server-stored SOC case, asset and health-check fields in `SocCaseNote.vue`, `SocCaseItem.vue`, `SocCaseAssetsItem.vue`, `SocAlertAssetsItem.vue` and `HealthcheckItem.vue`. The authentication store in `customer-portal/src/stores/auth.ts` persists both access and refresh tokens in JavaScript-readable storage, and `customer-portal/src/api/httpClient.ts` uses bearer headers rather than HttpOnly cookies. An injected script can steal both tokens, impersonate the viewer and obtain fresh tokens through `/auth/refresh`. If an analyst or administrator views the poisoned alert or case, this enables persistent privileged account takeover, cross-tenant data access, incident modification or deletion, and detection/response subversion. The health-check sink repair is first contained in version 0.1.70, while the comment and other SOC sink repairs are first contained in version 0.1.76. Version 0.1.76 is the provisional first release containing all observed repairs; grouped versus split CVE scope requires curator adjudication.

Patch / fix

Is CVE-2026-61728 in your stack? Fencer shows which of your repositories are affected as soon as an advisory lands, and opens the fix as a pull request.

Check with Fencer

CISA SSVC

Exploitation
Proof of concept is public
Automatable
no
Technical impact
total
Assessed
6d ago

Exploit prediction

0.46% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 40% of all scored CVEs (FIRST EPSS, 2026-11-11).

Exploits and checks

  • github.com https://github.com/socfortress/CoPilot/security/advisories/GHSA-8hqj-cqcc-5f6w referenced PoC, tagged "exploit" by a source, unverified

CVSS scores

assigned by version score vector
CNA 3.1 9.9 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Affected products

  • socfortress CoPilot

Classification

Weakness
  • CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation
  • CWE-922 Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information

References

Sources

Fencer Intel keeps one entry per vulnerability: the CVE id wins, then GHSA, and records that alias each other are merged, except that two CVEs always keep separate entries. The same data is available as JSON.

The maintainers of socfortress/CoPilot published their own advisory on GitHub. Reviewed sources take precedence over it.