Every CVE Search/ Get API key

CVE-2026-48119

Nezha Monitoring: Authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services

7.1 HighFix available

Nezha Monitoring is a self-hostable, lightweight, servers and websites monitoring and O&M tool. From version 0.20.0 to before version 2.0.12, authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.12.

Attack profile

How easy it is to exploit

Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
Low
User interaction
None

What an attacker can affect

Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

Exploit likelihood

0.31%Up 0.3 points since Jun 12, 2026
90%50%10%1%

What each source reports

CVE List Score used 7.1

Nezha Monitoring: Authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services

Nezha Monitoring is a self-hostable, lightweight, servers and websites monitoring and O&M tool. From version 0.20.0 to before version 2.0.12, authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.12.

Record
CVE-2026-48119
CVSS 3.1
7.1 HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Weakness
CWE-862
Updated
2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-36595 7.1

Nezha Monitoring is a self-hostable, lightweight, servers and websites monitoring and O&M tool. From version 0.20.0 to before version 2.0.12, authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.12.

Record
EUVD-2026-36595
CVSS 3.1
7.1 HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Updated
2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-4g6j-g789-rghm 7.1

Nezha's authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services

Summary

Nezha accepts service-monitor TaskResult messages from an authenticated agent based only on whether the reported service ID exists. The dashboard authenticates the agent and derives the reporter server ID from the gRPC stream, but the service-monitor result worker does not verify that the reporter server was selected for that service, belongs to the service owner, or was actually assigned that monitoring task.

A low-privilege user with a valid agent secret and one registered agent can therefore submit forged monitoring results for another user's service ID. This allows cross-tenant corruption of service-monitor history/current state, and can influence victim-owned service notifications with attacker-controlled result text.

Details

The agent task stream accepts inbound TaskResult messages after authenticating agent metadata:

  • service/rpc/auth.go:23-60 validates client_secret and client_uuid.
  • service/rpc/auth.go:63-75 registers an unknown valid UUID as a server for the authenticated secret owner.
  • service/rpc/nezha.go:40-48 authenticates the RequestTask stream and binds it to clientID.
  • service/rpc/nezha.go:50-56 receives agent-controlled TaskResult messages.
  • proto/nezha.proto:60-65 defines attacker-controlled TaskResult.id, type, delay, data, and successful.

For service-monitor task types, the result is dispatched directly to the service sentinel using the authenticated server ID as reporter:

  • service/rpc/nezha.go:85-90 dispatches service-monitor result types to ServiceSentinelShared.Dispatch with Reporter: clientID.
  • model/service.go:131-140 treats non-operational task types as service-monitor result types.

The vulnerable authorization gap is in the service-monitor worker:

  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:475-483 checks only that r.Data.GetId() resolves to an existing service.
  • It does not check that r.Reporter is covered by that service.
  • It does not check that the service owner owns the reporter server.
  • It does not check that the dashboard actually sent this service-monitor task to that agent.

The forged result is then recorded and used for service status processing:

  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:487-528 records ping service history keyed by ServiceID and Reporter.
  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:543-624 updates today's status, current service state, and state-change handling.
  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:723-739 can send victim-owned notifications containing mh.Data, which is attacker-controlled result text.

This is inconsistent with outbound service-monitor dispatch, which does enforce service coverage and ownership before sending tasks to agents:

  • cmd/dashboard/rpc/rpc.go:84-109 sends service-monitor tasks only to selected/non-skipped servers according to Service.Cover and SkipServers.
  • cmd/dashboard/rpc/rpc.go:96-107 calls canSendTaskToServer before sending.
  • cmd/dashboard/rpc/rpc.go:182-193 permits outbound dispatch only when the service owner owns the server, or when the service owner is an admin.
  • cmd/dashboard/controller/service.go:478-480 and cmd/dashboard/controller/service.go:590-607 validate selected servers, trigger tasks, and notification groups during service creation/update.

The inbound result path should mirror these authorization checks before accepting a result.

PoC

The following local PoC creates a temporary Go test file in service/singleton, uses an in-memory SQLite database, does not start the dashboard listener, does not contact public systems, and removes the temporary test file on exit.

The PoC proves the vulnerable processing path by creating:

  • victim user ID 100;
  • victim service ID 10;
  • victim server ID 1;
  • attacker user ID 200;
  • attacker reporter server ID 2.

The victim service is configured with ServiceCoverIgnoreAll and only server 1 enabled. Therefore, the dashboard's outbound service-monitor dispatch logic…

Record
GHSA-4g6j-g789-rghm
CVSS 3.1
7.1 HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Weakness
CWE-862
Updated
2026-11-02
NVD 7.1

Nezha Monitoring is a self-hostable, lightweight, servers and websites monitoring and O&M tool. From version 0.20.0 to before version 2.0.12, authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.12.

Record
CVE-2026-48119
CVSS 3.1
7.1 HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Weakness
CWE-862
Updated
2026-11-02
OSV 7.1

Nezha Monitoring: Authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services

Nezha Monitoring is a self-hostable, lightweight, servers and websites monitoring and O&M tool. From version 0.20.0 to before version 2.0.12, authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.12.

Record
CVE-2026-48119
CVSS 3.1
7.1 HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Weakness
CWE-862
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGHSA-4g6j-g789-rghm 7.1

Nezha's authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services

Summary

Nezha accepts service-monitor TaskResult messages from an authenticated agent based only on whether the reported service ID exists. The dashboard authenticates the agent and derives the reporter server ID from the gRPC stream, but the service-monitor result worker does not verify that the reporter server was selected for that service, belongs to the service owner, or was actually assigned that monitoring task.

A low-privilege user with a valid agent secret and one registered agent can therefore submit forged monitoring results for another user's service ID. This allows cross-tenant corruption of service-monitor history/current state, and can influence victim-owned service notifications with attacker-controlled result text.

Details

The agent task stream accepts inbound TaskResult messages after authenticating agent metadata:

  • service/rpc/auth.go:23-60 validates client_secret and client_uuid.
  • service/rpc/auth.go:63-75 registers an unknown valid UUID as a server for the authenticated secret owner.
  • service/rpc/nezha.go:40-48 authenticates the RequestTask stream and binds it to clientID.
  • service/rpc/nezha.go:50-56 receives agent-controlled TaskResult messages.
  • proto/nezha.proto:60-65 defines attacker-controlled TaskResult.id, type, delay, data, and successful.

For service-monitor task types, the result is dispatched directly to the service sentinel using the authenticated server ID as reporter:

  • service/rpc/nezha.go:85-90 dispatches service-monitor result types to ServiceSentinelShared.Dispatch with Reporter: clientID.
  • model/service.go:131-140 treats non-operational task types as service-monitor result types.

The vulnerable authorization gap is in the service-monitor worker:

  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:475-483 checks only that r.Data.GetId() resolves to an existing service.
  • It does not check that r.Reporter is covered by that service.
  • It does not check that the service owner owns the reporter server.
  • It does not check that the dashboard actually sent this service-monitor task to that agent.

The forged result is then recorded and used for service status processing:

  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:487-528 records ping service history keyed by ServiceID and Reporter.
  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:543-624 updates today's status, current service state, and state-change handling.
  • service/singleton/servicesentinel.go:723-739 can send victim-owned notifications containing mh.Data, which is attacker-controlled result text.

This is inconsistent with outbound service-monitor dispatch, which does enforce service coverage and ownership before sending tasks to agents:

  • cmd/dashboard/rpc/rpc.go:84-109 sends service-monitor tasks only to selected/non-skipped servers according to Service.Cover and SkipServers.
  • cmd/dashboard/rpc/rpc.go:96-107 calls canSendTaskToServer before sending.
  • cmd/dashboard/rpc/rpc.go:182-193 permits outbound dispatch only when the service owner owns the server, or when the service owner is an admin.
  • cmd/dashboard/controller/service.go:478-480 and cmd/dashboard/controller/service.go:590-607 validate selected servers, trigger tasks, and notification groups during service creation/update.

The inbound result path should mirror these authorization checks before accepting a result.

PoC

The following local PoC creates a temporary Go test file in service/singleton, uses an in-memory SQLite database, does not start the dashboard listener, does not contact public systems, and removes the temporary test file on exit.

The PoC proves the vulnerable processing path by creating:

  • victim user ID 100;
  • victim service ID 10;
  • victim server ID 1;
  • attacker user ID 200;
  • attacker reporter server ID 2.

The victim service is configured with ServiceCoverIgnoreAll and only server 1 enabled. Therefore, the dashboard's outbound service-monitor dispatch logic…

Record
GHSA-4g6j-g789-rghm
CVSS 3.1
7.1 HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Weakness
CWE-862
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGO-2026-5119 No score

Nezha's authenticated agents can forge service-monitor results for other users' services in github.com/nezhahq/nezha

Nezha accepts service-monitor TaskResult messages from an authenticated agent based only on whether the reported service ID exists. The dashboard authenticates the agent and derives the reporter server ID from the gRPC stream, but the service-monitor result worker does not verify that the reporter server was selected for that service, belongs to the service owner, or was actually assigned that monitoring task.

A low-privilege user with a valid agent secret and one registered agent can submit forged monitoring results for another user's service ID. This allows cross-tenant corruption of service-monitor history and state, and can influence victim-owned service notifications.

Record
GO-2026-5119
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVopenSUSE-SU-2026:21761-1 No score

Security update for govulncheck-vulndb

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

  • Update to version 0.0.20260827T195228 2026-08-27T19:52:28Z (jsc#PED-11136).

    Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

    • GO-2026-5026 CVE-2026-39821
    • GO-2026-6225
    • GO-2026-6250 CVE-2026-63328 GHSA-8rc5-4fr6-64pw
    • GO-2026-6253 CVE-2026-17106 GHSA-hfg8-hc9c-6c3h
    • GO-2026-6254 CVE-2026-53941 GHSA-vjhx-2cqw-3q6q
    • GO-2026-6255 CVE-2026-61711 GHSA-7236-3392-c5c6
    • GO-2026-6256 CVE-2026-61712 GHSA-72x6-4j93-7w86
    • GO-2026-6258 CVE-2026-45404 GHSA-42cj-99w8-cp2p
    • GO-2026-6259 CVE-2026-32637 GHSA-j2g6-362q-6qc6
    • GO-2026-6260 CVE-2026-55149 GHSA-qqff-5854-px68
    • GO-2026-6261 CVE-2026-54061 GHSA-rrwh-6jrq-wp5v
    • GO-2026-6262 GHSA-22w5-2fxg-vrwx
    • GO-2026-6263 CVE-2026-54168 GHSA-6f2p-296r-cc28
    • GO-2026-6264 CVE-2026-54245 GHSA-7q96-f8xw-jv5j
    • GO-2026-6265 GHSA-8fxq-53rx-ph5f
    • GO-2026-6266 CVE-2026-54167 GHSA-f5f4-3hh4-f54m
    • GO-2026-6267 GHSA-h58c-xccx-75m3
    • GO-2026-6268 GHSA-q9c5-pp7m-fm2g
    • GO-2026-6269 GHSA-rxhg-vcww-2mpw
    • GO-2026-6270 CVE-2026-54162 GHSA-x3g7-qrwc-f6c5
    • GO-2026-6271 CVE-2026-67448 GHSA-8r62-w5wh-fc5m
    • GO-2026-6272 CVE-2026-67447 GHSA-r553-m4fv-5v97
    • GO-2026-6273 CVE-2026-64679 GHSA-26w5-6g95-gj28
    • GO-2026-6274 CVE-2026-76905 GHSA-mmfr-pmjx-hw9w
    • GO-2026-6275 CVE-2026-77354 GHSA-xhj3-7xw9-vr34
    • GO-2026-6277 GHSA-4ph6-mjv7-3fq6
    • GO-2026-6278 GHSA-w67g-5rqw-f597
    • GO-2026-6279 CVE-2026-6046 GHSA-3vmp-whvv-5v9v
    • GO-2026-6280 CVE-2026-7387 GHSA-6hxm-w4hv-vgvw
    • GO-2026-6281 CVE-2026-6961 GHSA-8qq9-cqj8-82w4
    • GO-2026-6282 CVE-2026-7184 GHSA-9p44-r552-4wp9
    • GO-2026-6283 CVE-2026-6689 GHSA-c28q-m4gf-vg4q
    • GO-2026-6284 CVE-2026-55477 GHSA-jm48-m3rr-9hgg
    • GO-2026-6285 CVE-2026-6739 GHSA-m2w9-h2mm-79qr
    • GO-2026-6286 CVE-2026-3433 GHSA-rp4v-qc77-phm4
    • GO-2026-6287 GHSA-vx2m-jpxr-xv7w
    • GO-2026-6288 CVE-2026-11624 GHSA-76g7-m3xw-x9gr
    • GO-2026-6289 GHSA-w8j7-39hp-8x59
    • GO-2026-6290 CVE-2026-55581 GHSA-3x77-wg38-92r3
    • GO-2026-6291 CVE-2026-55582 GHSA-74hp-mggr-hv58
    • GO-2026-6292 CVE-2026-55580 GHSA-f5pj-2738-996m
    • GO-2026-6293 CVE-2026-55677 GHSA-vfp3-v2gw-7wfq
    • GO-2026-6294 CVE-2026-55092 GHSA-mcj4-mphf-j9ff
    • GO-2026-6295 CVE-2026-55637 GHSA-cmwv-wf9p-p8wx
    • GO-2026-6296 CVE-2026-54523 GHSA-79gf-7frw-68m9
    • GO-2026-6297 CVE-2026-50879 GHSA-g743-m6x3-v6wm
    • GO-2026-6298 CVE-2026-54563 GHSA-w5fv-7x5q-g8qp
    • GO-2026-6299 CVE-2026-50884 GHSA-5442-mh7f-72px
    • GO-2026-6300 CVE-2026-50891 GHSA-rcqf-cpv9-g5jf
    • GO-2026-6301 CVE-2026-42350 GHSA-g7gw-m874-7rmf

  • Update to version 0.0.20260819T170606 2026-08-19T17:06:06Z.

    Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

    • GO-2026-4720 GHSA-v3mg-9v85-fcm7
    • GO-2026-4942 CVE-2026-35172 GHSA-f2g3-hh2r-cwgc
    • GO-2026-4950
    • GO-2026-6093 GHSA-464c-974j-9xm6
    • GO-2026-6094 GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g
    • GO-2026-6095 GHSA-r277-6w6q-xmqw
    • GO-2026-6097 CVE-2026-55495 GHSA-49h3-cwhj-4737
    • GO-2026-6098 CVE-2026-55496 GHSA-8r7f-r8hj-r3rv
    • GO-2026-6099 CVE-2026-57497 GHSA-g35j-m5xg-vh3q
    • GO-2026-6100 CVE-2026-55497 GHSA-g9j2-8w95-3vwv
    • GO-2026-6101 CVE-2026-55502 GHSA-hq88-5x99-x3gf
    • GO-2026-6102 CVE-2026-55499 GHSA-w8x7-h2px-xmq8
    • GO-2026-6103 CVE-2026-73564 GHSA-26gq-p25f-99cp
    • GO-2026-6104 CVE-2026-62323 GHSA-c3jm-gv5r-9wcp
    • GO-2026-6105 GHSA-c534-2w9c-x7fm
    • GO-2026-6106 GHSA-v6w6-358x-2433
    • GO-2026-6107 CVE-2026-73500 GHSA-6vch-q96h-7gc3
    • GO-2026-6108 CVE-2026-73505 GHSA-6xj8-qv9j-xcjq
    • GO-2026-6109 GHSA-86cx-wwf4-phq4
    • GO-2026-6110 CVE-2026-73509 GHSA-95cv-r8x4-vh75
    • GO-2026-6111 CVE-2026-73506 GHSA-fwjx-9p69-h25h
    • GO-2026-6112 CVE-2026-73502 GHSA-jpcw-4wr7-c3vq
    • GO-2026-6113 GHSA-p6ph-3jx2-3337
    • GO-2026-6114 CVE-2026-73499 GHSA-xg4h-6gfc-h4m8
    • GO-2026-6115 CVE-2026-56867
    • GO-2026-6117 GHSA-hp74-gm6m-2qm5
    • GO-2026-6118 CVE-2026-47427 GHSA-w4q6-qw23-4rg7
    • GO-2026-6119 CVE-2026-43983…
Record
openSUSE-SU-2026:21761-1
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVSUSE-SU-2026:23625-1 No score

Security update for govulncheck-vulndb

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

  • Update to version 0.0.20260827T195228 2026-08-27T19:52:28Z (jsc#PED-11136).

    Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

    • GO-2026-5026 CVE-2026-39821
    • GO-2026-6225
    • GO-2026-6250 CVE-2026-63328 GHSA-8rc5-4fr6-64pw
    • GO-2026-6253 CVE-2026-17106 GHSA-hfg8-hc9c-6c3h
    • GO-2026-6254 CVE-2026-53941 GHSA-vjhx-2cqw-3q6q
    • GO-2026-6255 CVE-2026-61711 GHSA-7236-3392-c5c6
    • GO-2026-6256 CVE-2026-61712 GHSA-72x6-4j93-7w86
    • GO-2026-6258 CVE-2026-45404 GHSA-42cj-99w8-cp2p
    • GO-2026-6259 CVE-2026-32637 GHSA-j2g6-362q-6qc6
    • GO-2026-6260 CVE-2026-55149 GHSA-qqff-5854-px68
    • GO-2026-6261 CVE-2026-54061 GHSA-rrwh-6jrq-wp5v
    • GO-2026-6262 GHSA-22w5-2fxg-vrwx
    • GO-2026-6263 CVE-2026-54168 GHSA-6f2p-296r-cc28
    • GO-2026-6264 CVE-2026-54245 GHSA-7q96-f8xw-jv5j
    • GO-2026-6265 GHSA-8fxq-53rx-ph5f
    • GO-2026-6266 CVE-2026-54167 GHSA-f5f4-3hh4-f54m
    • GO-2026-6267 GHSA-h58c-xccx-75m3
    • GO-2026-6268 GHSA-q9c5-pp7m-fm2g
    • GO-2026-6269 GHSA-rxhg-vcww-2mpw
    • GO-2026-6270 CVE-2026-54162 GHSA-x3g7-qrwc-f6c5
    • GO-2026-6271 CVE-2026-67448 GHSA-8r62-w5wh-fc5m
    • GO-2026-6272 CVE-2026-67447 GHSA-r553-m4fv-5v97
    • GO-2026-6273 CVE-2026-64679 GHSA-26w5-6g95-gj28
    • GO-2026-6274 CVE-2026-76905 GHSA-mmfr-pmjx-hw9w
    • GO-2026-6275 CVE-2026-77354 GHSA-xhj3-7xw9-vr34
    • GO-2026-6277 GHSA-4ph6-mjv7-3fq6
    • GO-2026-6278 GHSA-w67g-5rqw-f597
    • GO-2026-6279 CVE-2026-6046 GHSA-3vmp-whvv-5v9v
    • GO-2026-6280 CVE-2026-7387 GHSA-6hxm-w4hv-vgvw
    • GO-2026-6281 CVE-2026-6961 GHSA-8qq9-cqj8-82w4
    • GO-2026-6282 CVE-2026-7184 GHSA-9p44-r552-4wp9
    • GO-2026-6283 CVE-2026-6689 GHSA-c28q-m4gf-vg4q
    • GO-2026-6284 CVE-2026-55477 GHSA-jm48-m3rr-9hgg
    • GO-2026-6285 CVE-2026-6739 GHSA-m2w9-h2mm-79qr
    • GO-2026-6286 CVE-2026-3433 GHSA-rp4v-qc77-phm4
    • GO-2026-6287 GHSA-vx2m-jpxr-xv7w
    • GO-2026-6288 CVE-2026-11624 GHSA-76g7-m3xw-x9gr
    • GO-2026-6289 GHSA-w8j7-39hp-8x59
    • GO-2026-6290 CVE-2026-55581 GHSA-3x77-wg38-92r3
    • GO-2026-6291 CVE-2026-55582 GHSA-74hp-mggr-hv58
    • GO-2026-6292 CVE-2026-55580 GHSA-f5pj-2738-996m
    • GO-2026-6293 CVE-2026-55677 GHSA-vfp3-v2gw-7wfq
    • GO-2026-6294 CVE-2026-55092 GHSA-mcj4-mphf-j9ff
    • GO-2026-6295 CVE-2026-55637 GHSA-cmwv-wf9p-p8wx
    • GO-2026-6296 CVE-2026-54523 GHSA-79gf-7frw-68m9
    • GO-2026-6297 CVE-2026-50879 GHSA-g743-m6x3-v6wm
    • GO-2026-6298 CVE-2026-54563 GHSA-w5fv-7x5q-g8qp
    • GO-2026-6299 CVE-2026-50884 GHSA-5442-mh7f-72px
    • GO-2026-6300 CVE-2026-50891 GHSA-rcqf-cpv9-g5jf
    • GO-2026-6301 CVE-2026-42350 GHSA-g7gw-m874-7rmf

  • Update to version 0.0.20260819T170606 2026-08-19T17:06:06Z.

    Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

    • GO-2026-4720 GHSA-v3mg-9v85-fcm7
    • GO-2026-4942 CVE-2026-35172 GHSA-f2g3-hh2r-cwgc
    • GO-2026-4950
    • GO-2026-6093 GHSA-464c-974j-9xm6
    • GO-2026-6094 GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g
    • GO-2026-6095 GHSA-r277-6w6q-xmqw
    • GO-2026-6097 CVE-2026-55495 GHSA-49h3-cwhj-4737
    • GO-2026-6098 CVE-2026-55496 GHSA-8r7f-r8hj-r3rv
    • GO-2026-6099 CVE-2026-57497 GHSA-g35j-m5xg-vh3q
    • GO-2026-6100 CVE-2026-55497 GHSA-g9j2-8w95-3vwv
    • GO-2026-6101 CVE-2026-55502 GHSA-hq88-5x99-x3gf
    • GO-2026-6102 CVE-2026-55499 GHSA-w8x7-h2px-xmq8
    • GO-2026-6103 CVE-2026-73564 GHSA-26gq-p25f-99cp
    • GO-2026-6104 CVE-2026-62323 GHSA-c3jm-gv5r-9wcp
    • GO-2026-6105 GHSA-c534-2w9c-x7fm
    • GO-2026-6106 GHSA-v6w6-358x-2433
    • GO-2026-6107 CVE-2026-73500 GHSA-6vch-q96h-7gc3
    • GO-2026-6108 CVE-2026-73505 GHSA-6xj8-qv9j-xcjq
    • GO-2026-6109 GHSA-86cx-wwf4-phq4
    • GO-2026-6110 CVE-2026-73509 GHSA-95cv-r8x4-vh75
    • GO-2026-6111 CVE-2026-73506 GHSA-fwjx-9p69-h25h
    • GO-2026-6112 CVE-2026-73502 GHSA-jpcw-4wr7-c3vq
    • GO-2026-6113 GHSA-p6ph-3jx2-3337
    • GO-2026-6114 CVE-2026-73499 GHSA-xg4h-6gfc-h4m8
    • GO-2026-6115 CVE-2026-56867
    • GO-2026-6117 GHSA-hp74-gm6m-2qm5
    • GO-2026-6118 CVE-2026-47427 GHSA-w4q6-qw23-4rg7
    • GO-2026-6119 CVE-2026-43983…
Record
SUSE-SU-2026:23625-1
Updated
2026-11-02

Affected products

Affected packages

Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
github.com/nezhahq/nezha
Go
 0.20.0 up to 1.14.15-0.20260521020202-02129f16fb15
1.14.15-0.20260521020202-02129f16fb15
github.com/nezhahq/nezha
Go
 2.0.0 up to 2.0.12
2.0.12
github.com/naiba/nezha
Go
 0.20.0 and later None known
github.com/nezhahq/nezha
Go
 1.0.0 up to 1.14.15-0.20260521020202-02129f16fb15
1.14.15-0.20260521020202-02129f16fb15
govulncheck-vulndb
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0
From an advisory covering 181 CVEs
 before 0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1
0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1
govulncheck-vulndb
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0
From an advisory covering 181 CVEs
 before 0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1
0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1
govulncheck-vulndb
openSUSE:Leap 16.0
From an advisory covering 181 CVEs
 before 0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1
0.0.20260827T195228-160000.1.1

History

History
RecordedChangedSources
affected, facts
first indexedCVE List, EUVD, GitHub Advisories, NVD, OSV

Dates are when Every CVE recorded each change. Upstream dates may differ.

In short

CVE-2026-48119 is a high vulnerability (CVSS 7.1) in Nezhahq Nezha, published June 1, 2026. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.31%, the 24th percentile. Fixed in github.com/nezhahq/nezha 1.14.15-0.20260521020202-02129f16fb15.

References

Show 182 moreShow less
This page doesn't list everything

Left out here: the rest of 4 source descriptions. The JSON record has them.

Pages All vulnerabilities Browse Docs Sources Guide Get API key
MoveEnter Open