In Microsoft Azure API Management through 2025-10-17, when self-service signup (username/password Basic Authentication) is enabled in Tenant A, an attacker can reuse the registration flow by changing the hostname or tenant identifier to Tenant B, even when Tenant B has signup disabled at the UI level
Source GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.
Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 16:39 UTC
- EPSS
- 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HExploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Jul 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.
Description
In Microsoft Azure API Management through 2025-10-17, when self-service signup (username/password Basic Authentication) is enabled in Tenant A, an attacker can reuse the registration flow by changing the hostname or tenant identifier to Tenant B, even when Tenant B has signup disabled at the UI level. In other words, disabling signup in the UI does not disable the underlying API endpoint (which still accepts cross-tenant requests based on the Host header). NOTE: The supplier states that they evaluated the report and determined it did not cross a security boundary (i.e., the observed behavior was a configuration/state issue rather than an exploitable product vulnerability affecting tenant isolation). NOTE: The supplier evaluated this report and determined that it did not cross a security boundary (i.e., the observed behavior was a configuration/state issue rather than an exploitable product vulnerability affecting tenant isolation).