Pivotick contains a DOM-based cross-site scripting vulnerability in its generic UI element resolution and icon-rendering utilities.
The tryResolveHTMLElement function treated any resolved string as HTML markup by assigning it to a element through innerHTML. Strings derived from untrusted graph properties or custom rendering callbacks could therefore introduce arbitrary HTML or SVG elements into the live document. The vulnerable function was used by multiple UI components, including headers, property panels, extra panels, and tooltips.
Additionally, createIcon inserted caller-supplied svgIcon markup into a template without sanitization. An application integrating Pivotick and deriving icon markup from untrusted data could therefore expose a second script-execution path.
An unauthenticated attacker able to provide a crafted graph, property value, rendering result, or SVG icon could execute JavaScript in another user's browser when the affected content is displayed or interacted with. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to access information available to the victim, manipulate graph data or application state, and perform actions with the victim's privileges.
The patch changes string rendering to use textContent, requiring callers to explicitly return an Element when HTML rendering is intended. It also sanitizes SVG icon markup before inserting it into the DOM.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.2 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-11). 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.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).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines 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.
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