CVE-2026-109799

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This high-severity CVE scores 7.5 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.2% (6th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source

Also known asEUVD-2026-120706 (ENISA EUVD)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo fix is confirmed yet: check with the vendor for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.

The SAP Cloud SDK for Python contains an improper cryptographic signature verification vulnerability (CWE-347) in IASContextProvider, the runtime-context provider registered by default via bootstrap(app).IASContextProvider extracted the app_tid, sap_gtid and user_uuid claims from the IAS JWT in the Authorization header using an unverified decoder and wrote them into the request-scoped RuntimeContext without validating the token signature. A remote caller could submit a self-signed JWT naming a victim tenant/user; the forged identity then propagated to every consumer of the runtime context:OTel span attributes (sap.tenancy.tenant_id, user.id) via RuntimeContextSpanProcessorlog records via IdentityLogFilteraudit events (tenant_id, user_initiator_id) via AuditClienttenant routing via CBCClientThis completes an earlier remediation that fixed the same unverified pattern in StarletteIASTelemetryMiddleware but did not cover IASContextProvider.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: No fix is confirmed yet. Check with the vendor for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
6th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

No fix is confirmed yet. Check with the vendor for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

November 10, 2026

Last Modified

November 12, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Nov 10, 2026
No fix on record yet. Sources: github.
Web page

SAP Security Notes & News

https://url.sap/sapsecuritypatchday
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

Improper verification of JWT signature in IASContextProvider leads to tenant/user identity spoofing · Advisory · SAP/cloud-sdk-python · GitHub

https://github.com/SAP/cloud-sdk-python/security/advisories/GHSA-93m8-crj2-v997

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 5× in last 7d / 5× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-12 22:28 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  2. 2026-11-12 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  3. 2026-11-11 16:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  4. 2026-11-10 20:28 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  5. 2026-11-10 19:45 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-11-10 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  7. 2026-11-10 02:00 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-120706 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  8. 2026-11-10 01:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  9. 2026-11-10 01:16 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH
  10. 2026-11-10 01:14 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-109799?
CVE-2026-109799 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 10, 2026. The SAP Cloud SDK for Python contains an improper cryptographic signature verification vulnerability (CWE-347) in IASContextProvider, the runtime-context provider registered by default via bootstrap(app).IASContextProvider extracted the app_tid, sap_gtid and user_uuid claims from the IAS JWT in the…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-109799 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-109799 was published on November 10, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of November 12, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-109799 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-109799 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (6th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-109799?
CVE-2026-109799 has a CVSS base score of 7.5 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-109799?
No fix for CVE-2026-109799 is confirmed yet. Until one is published, restrict network exposure of the affected system — for example, keep it off the internet or limit it to trusted networks — and watch for a fix.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-109799

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-109799?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.