VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2026Updated 30 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-100611: Cap-go capgo.app · Improper Privilege Management

Affects Cap-go capgo.appSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 10 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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-p4m4-7g3w-gpqw

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Cap-gocapgo.app	Affected <=12.261.0	Fixed in–
GitHubcap-go/capgo.app`pkg:github/cap-go/capgo.app`Other threats	Affected <=12.261.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Organizations should monitor vendor advisories for updates. Until a fix is released, restrict assignment of the apikey_manager role to trusted personnel only and consider additional compensating controls to limit the impact of unauthorized API key creation.

Description

Capgo (capgo.app backend, versions ≤ 12.261.0) improperly restricts which roles the apikey_manager organization role may bind to newly created API keys. When an authenticated user holding only apikey_manager (permissions org.manage_apikeys and org.read) calls POST /apikey with a JWT session, the only checks applied are the org.manage_apikeys permission, a fixed deny-list of assignable role names (APIKEY_MANAGER_DENIED_ASSIGNABLE_ROLES in public/apikey/scope.ts), and a priority-rank comparison in createRoleBindingForPrincipal (private/role_bindings.ts). No check verifies that the caller actually holds the permissions conferred by the role being assigned. Because the deny-list omits the deploy roles app_developer, app_uploader, channel_developer and channel_uploader, and apikey_manager is seeded with priority_rank 78 — higher than those roles' ranks (68, 66, 58, 57) — the rank check also passes. As a result, an apikey_manager who cannot upload bundles or promote channels can mint an API key bound to a deploy role and use it to push arbitrary OTA JavaScript updates to all end users of the organization's apps. As of the advisory publication no patched version was available.

Impact

An attacker with the apikey_manager role can create API keys with deploy privileges that they do not legitimately hold. This allows unauthorized deployment of over-the-air JavaScript updates to all users of the organization's applications, potentially leading to code execution or other malicious activities within the app environment. The vulnerability has a CVSS 4.0 score of 7.1 (high severity).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Oct 2026, 16:11 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats