VulnerabilityPublished 6 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30228: parse-server · Incorrect Authorization

Affects parse-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 9.5.0-alpha.3 or 8.6.5 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.5.0-alpha.3, 8.6.5

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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: High
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: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
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 6 Mar 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

Upgrade parse-server to 9.5.0-alpha.3 or 8.6.5; parse-server to 8.6.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
parse-communityparse-server	Affected <9.5.0-alpha.3	Fixed in 9.5.0-alpha.3
parse-communityparse-server	Affected <8.6.5	Fixed in 8.6.5
npmparse-server`pkg:npm/parse-server`Other threats	Affected <8.6.5 =9.5.0-alpha.3	Fixed in 8.6.5

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade all parse-server deployments to version 8.6.5 or later (including 9.5.0-alpha.3 or later) where the vulnerability is patched.
Audit and rotate the readOnlyMasterKey to ensure any potentially compromised keys are invalidated.
Restrict access to the readOnlyMasterKey strictly, storing it securely using environment variables or secret management solutions, and avoid exposing it in client-side code or logs.
Limit exposure of the Files API endpoints by implementing network-level controls such as IP whitelisting, VPN access, or API gateways with authentication and authorization enforcement.
Monitor file upload and deletion activities for anomalies or unauthorized operations, leveraging logging and alerting mechanisms.
Conduct regular security reviews of key management practices and access controls to prevent unauthorized key disclosure.
Consider implementing additional application-layer authorization checks to supplement parse-server’s built-in controls.
Educate development and operations teams about the risks of key leakage and the importance of timely patching.

Description

Parse Server is an open source backend that can be deployed to any infrastructure that can run Node.js. Prior to versions 8.6.5 and 9.5.0-alpha.3, the readOnlyMasterKey can be used to create and delete files via the Files API (POST /files/:filename, DELETE /files/:filename). This bypasses the read-only restriction which violates the access scope of the readOnlyMasterKey. Any Parse Server deployment that uses readOnlyMasterKey and exposes the Files API is affected. An attacker with access to the readOnlyMasterKey can upload arbitrary files or delete existing files. This issue has been patched in versions 8.6.5 and 9.5.0-alpha.3.

Impact

This vulnerability impacts the integrity and availability of files managed by parse-server deployments using the readOnlyMasterKey and exposing the Files API. An attacker with access to the readOnlyMasterKey can upload malicious files, potentially leading to the distribution of malware or unauthorized content. They can also delete critical files, causing data loss or service disruption. This could affect applications relying on parse-server for backend services, including mobile and web applications, leading to compromised user trust and operational downtime. Since the readOnlyMasterKey is intended to limit access, its misuse undermines security assumptions and could facilitate further attacks if attackers use uploaded files as a foothold. Organizations worldwide that deploy parse-server in production environments with exposed Files API endpoints and use the readOnlyMasterKey are at risk. Although exploitation requires possession of the key, if leaked or improperly stored, the impact can be significant. No known active exploits reduce immediate widespread risk, but the vulnerability should be addressed promptly to prevent future attacks.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 14 Mar 2026, 19:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats