CVE-2026-106512

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-106512
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html

The CakeResponse::download() method in lib/Cake/Network/CakeResponse.php constructs a Content-Disposition header by directly interpolating a caller-supplied filename into a quoted-string value without sanitization. Two distinct injection vectors exist in the unpatched code. First, if the filename contains C0 control characters (CR or LF), PHP refuses to emit the entire Content-Disposition header, silently dropping the attachment disposition. The response body is then served with its own Content-Type (for example text/html for an .html attachment) and renders inline in the browser on the application origin, creating a stored cross-site scripting condition. The commit message notes this is reachable even when the download_attachments_on_load setting is enabled, meaning a victim merely needs to view a page that triggers the download. Second, a double-quote character in the filename terminates the quoted-string value early, permitting injection of additional Content-Disposition parameters. The affected code path covers all callers of CakeResponse::download(), including attribute downloads, proposal downloads, and restSearch exports. An authenticated user who can create or upload an attachment with a crafted filename (for example through MISP attribute naming or proposal attachment naming) can store the malicious filename. When any other authenticated user views the affected page, the unsanitized filename is reflected into the HTTP response header, resulting in header manipulation and potential execution of arbitrary HTML or JavaScript in the context of the application origin. The security impact is equivalent to a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability, allowing session hijacking, data exfiltration, and unauthorized actions on behalf of the victim.

Weakness

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

Extended Description

Input validation is a frequently-used technique for checking potentially dangerous inputs in order to ensure that the inputs are safe for processing within the code, or when communicating with other components. Input can consist of:

Data can be simple or structured. Structured data can be composed of many nested layers, composed of combinations of metadata and raw data, with other simple or structured data. Many properties of raw data or metadata may need to be validated upon entry into the code, such as:

Implied or derived properties of data must often be calculated or inferred by the code itself. Errors in deriving properties may be considered a contributing factor to improper input validation.

Potential Mitigations

Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application’s current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.

Improper Input Validation

Weakness

Extended Description

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2026-106512

Improper Input Validation

Weakness

Extended Description

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References