PaperCut Emergency Patch 2: Validate v25 and v26

Emergency patches are supposed to be fire extinguishers. PaperCut has instead given administrators the sequel nobody wanted: the first extinguisher worked well enough to make everyone inhale, then the smoke kept moving under the door. According to BleepingComputer, PaperCut has released a second emergency patch for exploited flaws in PaperCut NG and PaperCut MF. That is the point where change control stops being paperwork and starts looking like a hostage negotiation with your print infrastructure. For teams running PaperCut NG and MF versions 25 and 26, the operational lesson is not just to install the latest update and go back to pretending printers are harmless beige furniture. The lesson is that emergency patching has three jobs: apply the fix, prove the fix, and reduce who can reach the dangerous surface while everyone is still counting the bodies in the log files. Public summaries reviewed for this issue describe an original fix that researchers found ways to bypass, with the underlying risk involving authentication bypass and remote code execution. In plain English, that is the difference between someone guessing a lobby code and someone getting invited straight into the server room.

What BleepingComputer says happened

BleepingComputer reports that PaperCut issued a second emergency patch for exploited flaws affecting PaperCut NG and MF. That word, second, is doing a lot of work here. It means the defensive clock did not stop when the first emergency fix landed; it merely changed shape, because enterprise software apparently believes every incident deserves a second act. The available reporting around the update says researchers found ways around the original repair, which is the nightmare version of a regression test. Authentication bypass and remote code execution are not decorative phrases in an advisory. Together, they describe a path where an attacker may not need a valid login before trying to make the server run code, which is why this class of bug tends to make defenders stare very hard at any internet reachable admin panel.

Why the first patch cannot be the finish line

BleepingComputer's report is a useful reminder that installing an emergency patch is a milestone, not a conclusion. In a normal maintenance window, teams can schedule, test, deploy, and document with the calm dignity of people who still believe printers obey reason. In an exploited flaw scenario, the patch is only one control in a live response, and the question becomes whether the environment is actually protected or merely updated. Fix validation is the part many organizations skip because it is tedious, and because the ticket already says complete. It should include confirming the exact deployed build, checking whether the vulnerable entry points are still reachable, reviewing logs for suspicious access, and testing that the mitigation actually blocks the behavior it was meant to stop. The gallows humor version is simple: if you do not test the lock, the threat actor gets to be quality assurance, and their bug report comes with shell access.

Exposure reduction buys time

when certainty is expensive BleepingComputer attributes the urgency to exploited flaws, and that is why exposure reduction matters while the new patch is being rolled out. If a PaperCut admin interface is reachable from places it does not need to be, the patch plan should also include narrowing access. Trusted IP restrictions, VPN only administration, firewall rules, and removal of unnecessary public exposure are not glamorous, but neither is explaining why a print server became the most interesting machine on the network. This is not an argument against patching quickly. It is an argument against treating the first patch as a magic spell. Emergency updates can be incomplete, bypasses can surface, and defenders need layered controls that keep working when one assumption fails. Threat actors do not need elaborate character development here; exposed administrative software is attractive because it can turn one weak doorway into a broader foothold.

What it actually means for you

BleepingComputer's coverage puts PaperCut NG and MF back in the category of software administrators should verify immediately, especially where versions 25 and 26 are in use. Apply the latest PaperCut guidance, then validate that the fix is present and effective. If the admin surface is exposed more widely than necessary, restrict it to trusted IPs and review recent access while the logs still remember what happened. The broader lesson is bigger than PaperCut. Emergency patching should be a response loop, not a one click ritual: patch, validate, reduce exposure, monitor, and repeat if the vendor ships another urgent fix. The internet will continue finding creative ways to make printers relevant to incident response, because apparently we are not allowed nice things. The useful move now is to turn this second update into a stronger process before the next advisory arrives wearing a different logo.