CVE-2026-26744VulnerabilityPublished 19 Feb 2026Updated 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26744: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 26% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 19 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should first check for and apply any official patches or updates from FormaLMS that address the user enumeration issue. In the absence of an official patch, administrators can implement the following practical measures: 1) Standardize error messages in the password recovery process so that responses do not differ based on username validity, thereby preventing attackers from distinguishing valid users. 2) Implement rate limiting and IP throttling on the /lostpwd endpoint to reduce the feasibility of automated enumeration attempts. 3) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block enumeration patterns targeting password recovery endpoints. 4) Monitor logs for unusual activity related to password recovery requests, especially repeated attempts with varying usernames. 5) Educate users about phishing risks and encourage strong, unique passwords combined with multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the impact of compromised credentials. 6) Consider temporarily disabling the password recovery feature if it is not essential or replacing it with more secure alternatives. These steps collectively reduce the risk of information leakage and subsequent attacks.

Description

A user enumeration vulnerability exists in FormaLMS 4.1.18 and below in the password recovery functionality accessible via the /lostpwd endpoint. The application returns different error messages for valid and invalid usernames allowing an unauthenticated attacker to determine which usernames are registered in the system through observable response discrepancy.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the exposure of valid usernames to unauthenticated attackers. This information leakage compromises confidentiality by enabling attackers to build accurate user lists, which can be leveraged in targeted phishing campaigns, credential stuffing attacks, or brute force attempts to gain unauthorized access. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the resulting attacks facilitated by user enumeration can lead to account compromise, data breaches, and potential lateral movement within affected organizations. Educational institutions, corporate training departments, and other organizations relying on FormaLMS for user management and training delivery are at risk of having their user data exposed, potentially undermining trust and compliance with data protection regulations. The ease of exploitation and lack of required authentication increase the likelihood of reconnaissance activities by malicious actors.

CWE-204Observable Response Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
ICMP IP Total Length Field Probe (opens in a new tab)
ICMP IP 'ID' Field Error Message Probe (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 12:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-204

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats