VulnerabilityPublished 26 Feb 2026Updated 3 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-27838: wger · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects wgerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 26 Feb 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 30 Oct 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
wger-projectwger	Affected <=2.4	Fixed in–
GitHubwger-project/wger`pkg:github/wger-project/wger`Other threats	Affected <=2.4	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 using wger should immediately upgrade to versions later than 2.4 where the patch has been applied to include user ID in cache keys. If upgrading is not immediately possible, administrators should consider disabling caching on the affected endpoints to prevent unauthorized cache retrieval. Implementing strict access controls and monitoring API access logs for unusual patterns can help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, reviewing and hardening API authentication and authorization mechanisms to ensure ownership checks are enforced at all layers is recommended. Developers should audit other caching implementations to verify that cache keys are properly scoped by user identity to prevent similar issues. Employing rate limiting and anomaly detection on API endpoints can further reduce risk. Finally, informing users about the vulnerability and encouraging password hygiene can mitigate risks from credential compromise that might facilitate exploitation.

Description

wger is a free, open-source workout and fitness manager. Five routine detail action endpoints check a cache before calling `self.get_object()`. In versions up to and including 2.4, ache keys are scoped only by `pk` — no user ID is included. When a victim has previously accessed their routine via the API, an attacker can retrieve the cached response for the same PK without any ownership check. Commit e964328784e2ee2830a1991d69fadbce86ac9fbf contains a patch for the issue.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized disclosure of cached workout routine details belonging to other users. While the data exposed may be limited to fitness routines, it could include sensitive personal health or exercise information that users expect to remain private. The flaw does not allow modification or deletion of data, so integrity and availability are unaffected. However, unauthorized access to personal data can undermine user trust and violate privacy regulations, especially in jurisdictions with strict data protection laws. For organizations deploying wger, this could lead to reputational damage and potential compliance issues. The vulnerability requires an attacker to have network access and knowledge of valid primary keys, which may limit exploitation scope. Since no user interaction is needed, automated attacks could be feasible if primary keys are predictable or discoverable. Overall, the impact is low but non-negligible for privacy-conscious environments.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Mar 2026, 21:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats