[GHSA-5ghq-42rg-769x] [CVE-2026-35035] - Request for CVSS correction or clarification
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Tech stack
- github
- Domain
- security
Research direction
Start with the advisory for CVE-2026-35035 and compare its published CVSS vector with the CVSS v3.1 and v4.0 guidance linked in the issue. Confirm whether the proposed UI and impact metrics are justified; done means the advisory vector or its explanation is corrected, or the requested clarification is provided.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Hi GitHub,
Our automated CVSS enrichment pipeline detected some discrepancies between GitHub's provided vector and ours. Since this also passed a GitHub review, I thought it would be helpful to share my insights here, so that the vector or its justification might be corrected. For reference, this was the output from our AI pipeline: https://graph.volerion.com/view?id=CVE-2026-35035.
For the current vector, UI:N was set rather than UI:R, likely due to the fact that the Cross-Site Scripting payload triggers on the main landing page, but that is still considered user interaction in CVSS terms. i.e. the attacker cannot exploit this at will and user participation is required in some manner. This was later clarified in the documentation for CVSS v4.
Additionally, impact represents the delta change in capabilities and an attacker with administrator access already has complete or near-complete control over their domain, so C:H/I:H/A:H seems like an impossible stretch.
My suggestion would be to change UI:N to UI:R and C:H/I:H/A:H to C:L/I:L/A:N, which is the higher-scoring impact group taken from the subsequent browser system, rather than the potential low-integrity repudiation impact suffered by the vulnerable system.
The final vector would then be:
https://volerion.com/cvss/3.1#vector=CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
which comes down to a base score of 4.8, a serious downgrade from 9.1.
Thanks!
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 2.5k
- Forks
- 772
- Avg merge
- 3d 15h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 46
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from github/advisory-database
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
github/advisory-database#9255 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
github/advisory-database#9164 · 1 reaction ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
github/advisory-database#8994 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
github/advisory-database#8898 · 4 comments · 1 reaction ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
github/advisory-database#8841 ·
All issues in github/advisory-database
Similar issues
-
needs-triage
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
Nmap
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 85/100
-
Mend: dependency security vulnerability untriaged
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
-
blocklist removal
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect#296544 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
Azure/azure-functions-docker#1257 ·