U.S. CISA adds Ivanti Sentry flaw to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog and urges patching by June 14


U.S. CISA adds Ivanti Sentry flaw to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog and urges patching by June 14

Pierluigi Paganini
June 12, 2026

U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds Ivanti Sentry flaw to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added Ivanti Sentry flaw, tracked as CVE-2026-10520 (CVSS score of 10.0), to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Ivanti Sentry is a secure gateway appliance that sits between an organization’s internal systems and mobile devices, helping companies manage and protect mobile access to corporate resources.

Threat actors have started exploiting the maximum-severity OS command injection flaw in Ivanti Sentry, that allows remote code execution with root privileges.

“An OS Command Injection vulnerability in Ivanti Sentry before the R10.5.2, R10.6.2 and R10.7.1 versions allows a remote unauthenticated user to achieve root-level remote code execution ” reads the advisory.

The vulnerability affects the secure mobile gateway used to protect communications between corporate systems and mobile devices. Although Ivanti initially reported no evidence of active attacks, researchers at Shadowserver found that many internet-exposed Sentry gateways had already been backdoored shortly after the security updates were released.

“We are observing a large amount of Ivanti Sentry CVE-2026-10520 exploitation attempts based on the public PoC today. We see 19 vulnerable instances in our own scans, with at least 2 backdoored (thanks to @NCA_KSA for the tip!). However, all remaining likely compromised too.” the Shadowserver Foundation posted on X. “While our detection is on the lowish side due to multiple Ivanti Sentry instances not reachable in our scans (blocklisted?), if you have not patched you are most likely compromised. Vuln IP data shared in Vulnerable HTTP reporting tagged ‘cve-2026-10520′”

Ivanti has not yet updated its advisory to confirm active exploitation of the issue in attacks in the wild. However, attackers frequently target Ivanti flaws because they can provide direct access into enterprise networks and enable data theft.

Threat actors can specifically target Ivanti Sentry instances mainly because they sit in a very sensitive and powerful position inside enterprise environments.

Ivanti Sentry acts as a gateway between mobile devices and internal corporate systems. That means if an attacker compromises it, they are no longer “outside” the network—they are effectively inside the trusted boundary.

According to Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22-01: Reducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, FCEB agencies have to address the identified vulnerabilities by the due date to protect their networks against attacks exploiting the flaws in the catalog.

Experts also recommend that private organizations review the Catalog and address the vulnerabilities in their infrastructure.

CISA orders federal agencies to fix the vulnerability by June 14, 2026.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, CISA)







Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


“It was severely downgraded,” Gilbert confirms. “I never would have found it if I was just looking through Google results.” (I tried the same prompt in Gemini earlier this month, and after an initial denial, the tool also gave me Eiger’s number.)

After this experience, Eiger, Gilbert, and another UW PhD student, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, decided to test ChatGPT to see what it would surface about a professor. 

At first, OpenAI’s guardrails kicked in, and ChatGPT responded that the information was unavailable. But in the same response, the chatbot suggested, “if you want to go deeper, I can still try a more ‘investigative-style’ approach.” Their inquiry just had to help “narrow things down,” ChatGPT said, by providing “a neighborhood guess” for where the professor might live, or “a possible co-owner name” for the professor’s home. ChatGPT continued: “That’s usually the only way to surface newer or intentionally less-visible property records.” 

The students provided this information, leading ChatGPT to produce the professor’s home address, home purchase price, and spouse’s name from city property records. 

(Taya Christianson, an OpenAI representative, said she was not able to comment on what happened in this case without seeing screenshots or knowing which model the students had tested, even after we pointed out that many users may not know which model they were using in the ChatGPT interface. She also declined to comment generally about the exposure of PII by the chatbot, instead providing links to documents describing how OpenAI handles privacy, including filtering out PII, and other tools.) 

This reveals one of the fundamental problems with chatbots, says DeleteMe’s Shavell. AI companies “can build in guardrails, but [their chatbots] are also designed to be effective and to answer customer questions.”

The exposure issue is not limited to Gemini or ChatGPT. Last year, Futurism found that if you prompted xAI’s chatbot Grok with “[name] address,” in almost all cases, it provided not only residential addresses but also often the person’s phone numbers, work addresses, and addresses for people with similar-sounding names. (xAI did not respond to a request for comment.) 

No clear answers

There aren’t straightforward solutions to this problem—there’s no easy way to either verify whether someone’s personal information is in a given model’s training set or to compel the models to remove PII. 



Source link