CVE-2026-25574VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2026Updated 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25574: payloadcms payload · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects payloadcms payloadSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 3.74.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.74.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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 6 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 payload and payloadcms/payload to 3.74.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
payloadcmspayload	Affected <3.74.0	Fixed in 3.74.0
GitHubpayloadcms/payload`pkg:github/payloadcms/payload`Other threats	Affected <3.74.0	Fixed in 3.74.0

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade Payload CMS installations to version 3.74.0 or later to remediate this vulnerability. For environments where immediate patching is not feasible, administrators should review and restrict access controls on the payload-preferences collection, ensuring strict segregation between authentication collections. Implementing additional application-layer authorization checks to verify ownership of preference records before read or delete operations can reduce risk. Database administrators should consider customizing ID generation strategies to avoid numeric ID collisions across auth collections, such as using UUIDs or composite keys incorporating collection identifiers. Monitoring and logging access to the preferences collection can help detect suspicious activity indicative of exploitation attempts. Organizations should also conduct audits of user preference data integrity and access patterns post-patch to identify any unauthorized access or deletions. Finally, educating developers and administrators about the risks of IDOR vulnerabilities and secure multi-auth collection design is recommended to prevent similar issues.

Description

Payload is a free and open source headless content management system. Prior to 3.74.0, a cross-collection Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability exists in the payload-preferences internal collection. In multi-auth collection environments using Postgres or SQLite with default serial/auto-increment IDs, authenticated users from one auth collection can read and delete preferences belonging to users in different auth collections when their numeric IDs collide. This vulnerability has been patched in v3.74.0.

Impact

For European organizations using Payload CMS in multi-auth collection configurations with Postgres or SQLite databases, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized access and deletion of user preference data across authentication boundaries. This could lead to privacy breaches, loss of user-specific configurations, and potential disruption of user experience or administrative processes relying on these preferences. While the vulnerability does not affect system availability, the confidentiality and integrity impacts could undermine trust in affected services, especially in sectors handling sensitive or regulated data such as finance, healthcare, and public administration. Organizations with complex multi-tenant or multi-auth setups are particularly at risk. The breach of user preferences might also facilitate further targeted attacks or social engineering if attackers gain insight into user settings or behaviors. Compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations could be jeopardized if unauthorized data access occurs, potentially resulting in legal and reputational consequences.

CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/payloadcms/payload/security/advisories/GHSA-jq29-r496-r955 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Feb 2026, 12:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats