VulnTideExploited vulnerabilities, by vendor. Data as of .
Not in CISA KEVPublished CVSS 9.9 criticalEPSS 0.5% probability of exploitation in 30 days
socfortress

CVE-2026-61728: SOCFortress CoPilot: Stored comment and SOC-field XSS permits privileged account takeover

Is it exploited?

Not on CISA's list. CISA has not added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog as of . If CISA adds it, this page shows it as known exploited.

How likely is exploitation in the next 30 days?
0.5%

EPSS score, percentile 40.2 of all scored records. A probability estimated by FIRST, not a report of exploitation.

CISA's SSVC assessment in the CVE record lists exploitation as poc.

How severe?
9.9 Critical

CVSS v3.1 base score, given by the CNA

What should I do?

CISA has set no required action, because the vulnerability is not in KEV.

No patch or vendor advisory is listed in the CVE record. Check socfortress's advisories.

Which versions are affected?

Affected

  • < 0.1.76

Versions by product

Source: CISA KEV 2026.11.10, as of ; FIRST EPSS, as of ; CVE List, as of . About the data.

Description

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

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.

Source: CVE List, as of . About the data.

What to do

Advisories and patches

No patch, vendor advisory or mitigation is listed in the CVE record. Check socfortress's own security advisories for a fix, and compare your version with the affected versions below.

This summary is based on the CVE record as of . Check the vendor's advisory before you act: affected versions and fixes can change.

Affected products and versions

Versions by product, as listed in the CVE record (1 product)
socfortress CoPilot
StatusVersions
Affected< 0.1.76

Source: CVE List, as of . About the data.

Weakness

CWE-79, CWE-922
  • CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
  • CWE-922: Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information

CWE and CAPEC are maintained by MITRE; the entries are those named in the CVE record.

Timeline

DateEvent
CVE record published
CVE record last updated

References

6