VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jan 2024Updated 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-48926: Missing Authorization

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 2.3.4 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.3.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 16 Jan 2024
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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n/a n/a	Affected <2.3.4	Fixed in 2.3.4

AI-suggested

European ecommerce operators using PrestaShop should prioritize upgrading the Advanced Loyalty Program module to version 2.3.4 or later once available. If you cannot patch yet, administrators should implement strict access controls and monitor order status changes closely for anomalies. Employing web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious requests targeting order status endpoints can provide a temporary barrier. Additionally, enabling detailed logging and alerting on order status modifications will help in early detection of exploitation attempts. Reviewing and tightening API and backend access permissions to ensure that only authenticated and authorized users can modify order statuses is critical. Organizations should also educate staff to recognize and respond to unusual order activity and consider implementing multi-factor authentication for administrative access to the ecommerce backend. Finally, engaging with PrestaShop community forums and security advisories will ensure timely awareness of patches and exploit developments.

Description

An issue in 202 ecommerce Advanced Loyalty Program: Loyalty Points before v2.3.4 for PrestaShop allows unauthenticated attackers to arbitrarily change an order status.

Impact

For European organizations operating ecommerce platforms based on PrestaShop with the Advanced Loyalty Program module, this vulnerability could lead to significant operational and reputational damage. Attackers could alter order statuses to falsely mark orders as completed, canceled, or refunded, potentially resulting in financial losses, customer dissatisfaction, and logistical errors. This could undermine trust in the ecommerce service and complicate inventory and revenue tracking. Given the widespread use of PrestaShop in Europe, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that rely heavily on loyalty programs to retain customers, the impact could be broad. Additionally, manipulation of order statuses might be leveraged as part of more complex fraud schemes or to disrupt business continuity. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity loss alone can have cascading effects on business operations and compliance with consumer protection regulations prevalent in the EU.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/202ecommerce/security-advisories/security/advisories/GHSA-jp2c-mj65-qpmw (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Jul 2025, 16:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats