CVE-2026-25233VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026Updated 4 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25233: pear pearweb · Operator Precedence Logic Error

Affects pear pearwebSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 1.33.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.33.0

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 3 Feb 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 2026-10-26.

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 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

Upgrade pearweb and pear/pearweb to 1.33.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
pearpearweb	Affected <1.33.0	Fixed in 1.33.0
GitHubpear/pearweb`pkg:github/pear/pearweb`Other threats	Affected <1.33.0	Fixed in 1.33.0

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade pearweb installations to version 1.33.0 or later, where the logic bug has been corrected. Organizations should implement strict role-based access controls and audit maintainer permissions regularly to ensure only authorized lead maintainers have roadmap modification rights. Conduct code reviews and testing to verify that operator precedence and conditional logic in custom or forked versions of pearweb are correctly implemented. Employ monitoring and alerting on roadmap changes to detect unauthorized modifications promptly. Where possible, isolate development and project management environments to reduce exposure. Educate development teams on the importance of applying security patches promptly and maintaining least privilege principles. For organizations unable to upgrade immediately, consider implementing compensating controls such as manual approval workflows for roadmap changes or temporarily restricting maintainer roles. Finally, maintain an incident response plan to address potential exploitation scenarios involving project management data integrity.

Description

CVE-2026-25233 is a high-severity logic vulnerability in the PEAR pearweb system affecting versions prior to 1.33.0. The flaw is an operator precedence logic error in the roadmap role check, which allows non-lead maintainers to create, update, or delete roadmaps without proper authorization. This vulnerability does not require user interaction or elevated privileges beyond maintainer access and can be exploited remotely over the network. Although no known exploits are currently in the wild, the issue impacts the integrity of project management data within pearweb. The vulnerability has been patched in version 1.33.0, and organizations using affected versions should upgrade promptly. European organizations relying on PEAR components for PHP development or project management are at risk, especially those with active development teams using pearweb.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2026-25233 lies in the compromise of data integrity within project management workflows using pearweb. Unauthorized roadmap modifications can lead to misinformation about project status, misallocation of resources, and potential disruption of development timelines. This can indirectly affect the confidentiality of project plans if unauthorized users gain insight into roadmap contents. Organizations relying on PEAR for PHP component management or internal development tracking may face operational risks and reputational damage if attackers exploit this flaw to manipulate project data. The vulnerability could also facilitate further attacks if roadmap data is used to plan or coordinate development activities. Given the widespread use of PHP and open-source tools in Europe, especially in technology hubs and enterprises with active software development, the threat is relevant. While no direct availability impact is noted, the integrity compromise can have cascading effects on business processes. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits post-disclosure. Compliance-driven organizations may also face regulatory scrutiny if unauthorized changes lead to data governance issues.

References

github.com/pear/pearweb/security/advisories/GHSA-p92v-9j73-fxx3 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Feb 2026, 11:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-783

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats