VulnerabilityPublished 6 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30241: mercurius · Incorrect Authorization

Affects mercuriusSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.7 Low : upgrade to 16.8.0 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.8.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: Unreported

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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: 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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.
Exploit Maturity: Unreported: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

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 29 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 mercurius and mercurius-js/mercurius to 16.8.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
mercurius-jsmercurius	Affected <16.8.0	Fixed in 16.8.0
npmmercurius-js/mercurius`pkg:npm/mercurius-js/mercurius`Other threats	Affected <16.8.0	Fixed in 16.8.0

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 mercurius to version 16.8.0 or later, where the depth validation is correctly enforced on subscription queries over WebSocket. Organizations should audit their GraphQL APIs to identify mercurius versions in use and prioritize patching vulnerable instances. Additionally, implement WebSocket connection rate limiting and query complexity analysis to detect and block abnormal subscription query patterns. Monitoring resource usage and setting thresholds for subscription event processing can help detect potential abuse. Employ network-level controls to restrict access to subscription endpoints where possible. For schemas with recursive types, consider schema design reviews to limit recursion depth and complexity. Logging and alerting on unusually deep or complex subscription queries can provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Finally, maintain up-to-date dependency management and vulnerability scanning to detect and remediate similar issues promptly.

Description

Mercurius is a GraphQL adapter for Fastify. Prior to version 16.8.0, Mercurius fails to enforce the configured queryDepth limit on GraphQL subscription queries received over WebSocket connections. The depth check is correctly applied to HTTP queries and mutations, but subscription queries are parsed and executed without invoking the depth validation. This allows a remote client to submit arbitrarily deeply nested subscription queries over WebSocket, bypassing the intended depth restriction. On schemas with recursive types, this can lead to denial of service through exponential data resolution on each subscription event. This issue has been patched in version 16.8.0.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is a denial of service (DoS) condition caused by resource exhaustion. Attackers can exploit the missing depth validation on subscription queries to submit deeply nested GraphQL subscriptions, which on recursive schemas can cause exponential data processing for each event. This can degrade server performance, increase latency, or cause crashes, disrupting service availability. Organizations running GraphQL APIs with mercurius versions prior to 16.8.0 and supporting subscriptions over WebSocket are at risk. Although the vulnerability does not allow data leakage or unauthorized data modification, the DoS impact can affect service reliability and user experience. The low CVSS score reflects the limited scope and impact, but high-volume or targeted attacks could still cause significant operational disruption. Since no authentication or user interaction is required, the attack surface includes any client able to connect to the WebSocket endpoint. This could affect public-facing APIs or internal services exposed to untrusted networks. The absence of known exploits suggests limited current threat activity, but the vulnerability should be addressed proactively.

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, 19:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats