CVE-2026-91165 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-91165 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-91165: Warpgate is an open source SSH, HTTPS and MySQL bastion host for Linux. Prior to 0.27.6, the response_mode=form_post SSO return path in warpgate-protocol-http/src/api/sso_provider_list.rs uses serde_json::to_string inside ReturnToSsoPostResponse without neutralizing a script-closing sequence. The vulnerable value can enter the script block through the attacker-controlled next redirect parameter stored by warpgate-protocol-http/src/api/sso_provider_detail.rs or through IdP-derived error messages that make_redirect_url concatenates without URL encoding. The IdP-derived path is reachable when the attacker controls a configured identity provider, or when the attacker controls the email or username claim on an attacker-controlled account and the configured identity provider permits the required unvalidated claim format. A victim must complete the form_post SSO flow for the injected markup to be rendered. The Warpgate Content-Security-Policy blocks injected JavaScript and event handlers, so the demonstrated impact is content spoofing, a false login form, or a meta refresh rather than script execution. This issue is fixed in version 0.27.6.

CVE-2026-91165 References

External References

• https://github.com/warp-tech/warpgate/commit/e94425a08f501383a67316673749dcbd637c6ce3
• https://github.com/warp-tech/warpgate/releases/tag/v0.27.6
• https://github.com/warp-tech/warpgate/security/advisories/GHSA-vvpj-p7j8-4rv4

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch CAPEC-209 An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
• DOM-Based XSS CAPEC-588 This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
• Reflected XSS CAPEC-591 This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
• Stored XSS CAPEC-592 An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
• Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) CAPEC-63 An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
• AJAX Footprinting CAPEC-85 This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-85219 – Denial-of-Service in Redis module in Thinkst Canary's OpenCanary 0.9.9 allows an unauthenticated remote attacker cause unconstrained memory usage.
• CVE-2026-81469 – Dell Inventory Collector Client, versions prior to 15.0.0, contain an Unquoted Search Path or Element vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with...
• CVE-2026-79320 – Stencil core 4.43.5 contains a DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the component runtime. When a downstream application enables t...
• CVE-2026-79319 – Stencil core 4.43.5 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control.
• CVE-2026-79318 – web2py 3.2.2-stable (commit a7330a2bf21219fa77860b6665de927dd4f98e6d) is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in read_file()/write_file() (application...