CVE-2026-40171

Home/CVE/In Jupyter Notebook versions 7.0.0 through 7.5.5, JupyterLab versions 4.5.6 and earlier, and the corresponding @jupyter-

CVE

In Jupyter Notebook versions 7.0.0 through 7.5.5, JupyterLab versions 4.5.6 and earlier, and the corresponding @jupyter-

In Jupyter Notebook versions 7.0.0 through 7.5.5, JupyterLab versions 4.5.6 and earlier, and the corresponding @jupyter-notebook/help-extension and @jupyterlab/help-extension packages before 7.5.6 and 4.5.7, a stored cross-site scripting issue in the help command linker can be chained with attacker-controlled notebook content to steal authentication tokens with a single click. An attacker can craft a malicious notebook file containing elements that appear indistinguishable from legitimate controls and trigger execution when a user interacts with them. Successful exploitation allows theft of the user's authentication token and complete takeover of the Jupyter session through the REST API, including reading files, creating or modifying files, accessing kernels to execute arbitrary code, and creating terminals for shell access.

This issue has been fixed in Notebook 7.5.6, JupyterLab 4.5.7, @jupyter-notebook/help-extension 7.5.6, and @jupyterlab/help-extension 4.5.7. As a workaround, disable the affected help extensions or set allowCommandLinker to false in the sanitizer configuration.

EPSS 0.00059

Monitor

⚠ NVD has not scored this CVE yet - manual triage required (common for recent CVEs)

Sigma rules0 YARA rules0

Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots

NVD CVE.org CISA Vulners Exploit-DB GitHub PoC VulnCheck KEV GreyNoise

▸ How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch

This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-40171, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.

Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:

CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.

How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.

Then what - two workflows:

Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.

Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

View attack path from CVE-2026-40171

◆

ATT&CK techniques

Techniques this CVE enables - linked via CWECAPECATT&CK. High◆ = named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei templates.

T1059 · Command and Scripting Interpreter T1190 · Exploit Public-Facing Application

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

▤

CAPEC attack patterns

Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.

CAPEC-CAPEC-209 · XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch CAPEC-CAPEC-588 · DOM-Based XSS CAPEC-CAPEC-591 · Reflected XSS CAPEC-CAPEC-592 · Stored XSS CAPEC-CAPEC-63 · Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) CAPEC-CAPEC-85 · AJAX Footprinting

⬡

Weakness Classification

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

▤

Affected Packages

Language-ecosystem packages (from OSV) tied to this CVE, with the version that fixes it - the dependency-level detail NVD doesn’t carry.

PyPI jupyterlab HIGH fixed in 4.5.7

PyPI notebook HIGH fixed in 7.5.6

npm @jupyter-notebook/help-extension HIGH fixed in 7.5.6

npm @jupyterlab/help-extension HIGH fixed in 4.5.7

📦

Fixed versions by distribution

The package version that resolves this CVE on each Linux distribution, from the vendor’s published security data. fixed in shows a patched version exists; open means the package is listed as affected with no fix yet.

alpine edgejupyter-notebook fixed in 7.5.6-r0

▣

Scoring & Timeline

Published to NVD06 May 2026 · 08:16 PM

SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment

Exploitation

none

Automatable

Technical impact

total

SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.

⚑

Vendor Advisories

suse-csafopenSUSE-SU-2026:10748-1

suse-csafopenSUSE-SU-2026:10749-1

🔗

References & Sources

Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.

https://github.com/jupyter/notebook/security/advisories/GHSA-rch3-82jr-f9w9