VulnerabilityPublished 11 Sep 2026Updated 24 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-81912: Concrete CMS before 9.5.3 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in the Move Multiple Groups

Source GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium · fixed in 9.5.3 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 05:11 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-gpgr-mxq3-f5p5

What to do

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Concrete CMS version 9.5.3. Users should upgrade to version 9.5.3 or later to remediate this vulnerability. No other mitigation guidance is provided or necessary as the issue is resolved by the official patch.

Description

Concrete CMS before 9.5.3 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in the Move Multiple Groups feature. The dashboard/users/groups/bulkupdate/confirm() endpoint moved the selected group tree nodes without validating an action token, so a state-changing group move could be processed for an authenticated user who did not initiate it. Because relocating a group under a new parent causes that group's members to inherit the parent's permissions, a forged move can change effective authorization. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v4.0 score of 5.7 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks riodrwn for reporting.

Impact

An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to trick an authenticated user into unknowingly moving groups within the CMS. This action changes group membership inheritance, potentially granting unauthorized permissions to users. The impact is a medium severity authorization change without direct data disclosure or system compromise.

Summary

Concrete CMS prior to version 9.5.3 contains a CSRF vulnerability in the dashboard/users/groups/bulkupdate/confirm() endpoint. This endpoint processes requests to move multiple group tree nodes but lacks validation of an action token, enabling attackers to perform unauthorized state-changing operations on behalf of authenticated users. Since moving a group under a new parent causes members to inherit the parent's permissions, this can lead to unauthorized permission changes. The vulnerability was assigned CVE-2026-81912 and has a CVSS v4.0 score of 5.7.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Sep 2026, 01:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats