Home/CVE/Guzzle Services provides an implementation of the Guzzle Command library that uses Guzzle service descriptions to descri
CVE

CVE-2026-53723

Guzzle Services provides an implementation of the Guzzle Command library that uses Guzzle service descriptions to descri

Guzzle Services provides an implementation of the Guzzle Command library that uses Guzzle service descriptions to describe web services, serialize requests, and parse responses into easy to use model structures. Versions prior ro 1.5.4 do not safely serialize scalar XML element values containing the CDATA terminator ]]>. The XML request serializer writes values containing <, >, or & with XMLWriter::writeCData($value). If attacker-controlled input contains ]]>, the CDATA section closes early and the remainder is interpreted as XML markup. This is an outgoing request-body integrity issue, not a response parsing issue. The attacker does not need to control the service description or schema. Users are affected when all of the following are true: the application uses guzzlehttp/guzzle-services to serialize outgoing requests.

a request parameter or additionalParameters schema uses location: xml.

the value is serialized as XML element text, not an XML attribute.

the value can contain attacker-controlled, user-controlled, tenant-controlled, or otherwise untrusted input.

the value is not constrained by a safe enum, pattern, or custom filter that excludes ]]>.

and the downstream service parses the generated XML structurally and may act on unexpected, duplicated, or injected elements. Applications that serialize untrusted input into location: xml request parameters can emit XML containing attacker-controlled elements outside the intended text node. Depending on the receiving service, this can alter operation semantics, smuggle privileged fields, bypass modeled parameter boundaries, or create conflicting duplicated elements. Fixed service descriptions are sufficient if they contain an XML element parameter populated from attacker-controlled input. Users are not directly affected if they only use Guzzle Services to deserialize HTTP response bodies. Response XML parsing uses the response XML location visitor and does not invoke the vulnerable request XML serializer. Response bodies matter only in a second-order flow, such as parsing attacker-controlled response XML, storing or forwarding a parsed string value, and later using it as a location: xml request parameter. The issue is patched in 1.5.3 and later by safely splitting embedded CDATA terminators before serialization. The fix preserves the original scalar value as XML text and prevents injected nodes. As a workaround, constrain attacker-controlled XML element values with a strict enum, pattern, or custom filter that excludes ]]>, or avoid serializing untrusted data into location: xml element text until patched. Where appropriate for the service schema, XML attributes are not affected because they are written with XMLWriter attribute APIs rather than CDATA sections. To determine whether action is needed, search service descriptions for request parameters using location: xml, including operation parameters and additionalParameters. Response-only models are not directly affected unless parsed values are reused for request serialization. For object and array parameters, review nested scalar properties because leaf element values can still be affected.

MEDIUM · CVSS 5.8 EPSS 0.00045
Schedule remediation
  • SSVC automatable: yes - attacks can be scripted at scale
Sigma rules0 YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-53723, 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).

Affected Packages

1
Language-ecosystem packages (from OSV) tied to this CVE, with the version that fixes it - the dependency-level detail NVD doesn’t carry.
Packagist guzzlehttp/guzzle-services MEDIUM fixed in 1.5.4

Scoring & Timeline

5.8
MEDIUM · CVSS v3.1 · [email protected]
View on NVD
Attack Vector
Network Adjacent Local Physical
Attack Complexity
Low High
Privileges Required
None Low High
User Interaction
None Required
Scope
Unchanged Changed
Confidentiality
None Low High
Integrity
None Low High
Availability
None Low High
Published to NVD11 Jun 2026 · 02:16 PM
CVSS VectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
none
Automatable
yes
Technical impact
partial
SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.
SOC and Response
CVE triage
Stack monitoring
Am I affected
IOC triage
KEV catalog
Recently exploited
Daily brief
Change tracking
Detection Engineering
Coverage workspace
Detection coverage
Coverage check
Telemetry ceiling
SIEM query builder
Sigma rules
SIEM rules
YARA rules
Network rules
D3FEND
Threat Hunting
Threat actors
ATT&CK techniques
Attack paths
Indicators
Atomic tests
Red Team and Pentest
Exploitability triage
Recon pack
Attack paths
CAPEC patterns
Adversary emulation
Compliance and GRC
Framework mapping
Control assessment
Audit view
Atlas Search Threat actors Techniques Tools & malware CWE CAPEC KEV catalog Package vulns
About All capabilities Pricing API docs Live status Privacy policy Terms of service
threatengine.sh