AnyCable up to 1.6.14 Pusher-compatible REST API pusher/http.go handleEvents body_md5 data authenticity
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 5.0 | $0-$5k | 1.55- |
Summary
A vulnerability was found in AnyCable up to 1.6.14. It has been rated as problematic. The impacted element is the function handleEvents of the file pusher/http.go of the component Pusher-compatible REST API. The manipulation of the argument body_md5 leads to data authenticity.
This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2026-63405. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.
Upgrading the affected component is advised.
Details
A vulnerability was found in AnyCable up to 1.6.14. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects the function handleEvents of the file pusher/http.go of the component Pusher-compatible REST API. The manipulation of the argument body_md5 with an unknown input leads to a data authenticity vulnerability. Using CWE to declare the problem leads to CWE-345. The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data. Impacted is integrity. The summary by CVE is:
AnyCable is a realtime server for reliable two-way communication that supports any backend. Prior to 1.6.15, the Pusher-compatible REST API in pusher/http.go includes the caller-supplied body_md5 value in the HMAC input but does not calculate the digest of the received request body or compare it with the signed value. An attacker who obtains a legitimate signed POST request can retain its query parameters and auth_signature while replacing the body, causing Handler and handleEvents to accept and broadcast attacker-selected event content. The absence of an auth_timestamp freshness check also allows the captured signature to be replayed indefinitely. This can forge server-side events, modify application state, or deliver attacker-controlled messages to WebSocket clients within the signed request's application context. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.15.
The advisory is shared at github.com. The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-63405 since 07/16/2026. The exploitation is known to be easy. The attack may be initiated remotely. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available.
Upgrading to version 1.6.15 eliminates this vulnerability.
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Name
Version
Website
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔒VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 5.1VulDB Meta Temp Score: 5.0
VulDB Base Score: 4.3
VulDB Temp Score: 4.1
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CNA Base Score: 5.9
CNA Vector (GitHub_M): 🔒
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Data authenticityCWE: CWE-345
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: UpgradeStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔒
Upgrade: AnyCable 1.6.15
Timeline
07/16/2026 CVE reserved09/18/2026 Advisory disclosed
09/18/2026 VulDB entry created
09/18/2026 VulDB entry last update
Sources
Product: github.comAdvisory: github.com
Status: Confirmed
CVE: CVE-2026-63405 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-63405
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-407645
Entry
Created: 09/18/2026 19:08Changes: 09/18/2026 19:08 (66)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.