VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2026Updated 10 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30842: ellite Wallos · Missing Authorization

Affects ellite WallosSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 4.6.2 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.6.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 7 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 Wallos and ellite/Wallos to 4.6.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
elliteWallos	Affected <4.6.2	Fixed in 4.6.2
GitHubellite/Wallos`pkg:github/ellite/Wallos`Other threats	Affected <4.6.2	Fixed in 4.6.2

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

AI-suggested

The definitive mitigation is to upgrade Wallos to version 4.6.2 or later, where the authorization check on avatar deletion is properly enforced. Until upgrade is possible, administrators should restrict user permissions to minimize the risk of unauthorized file deletions, such as limiting who can upload or delete avatars. Monitoring logs for unusual deletion requests and implementing rate limiting on avatar deletion endpoints can help detect and prevent abuse. Additionally, users should be educated to use strong, non-guessable filenames for uploaded avatars to reduce the chance of filename discovery. Application developers should review all endpoints handling user-specific resources to ensure proper authorization checks are in place, following the principle of least privilege. Regular security audits and penetration testing can help identify similar authorization issues before release.

Description

Wallos is an open-source, self-hostable personal subscription tracker. Prior to version 4.6.2, Wallos allows an authenticated user to delete avatar files uploaded by other users. The avatar deletion endpoint does not verify that the requested avatar belongs to the current user. As a result, any authenticated user who knows or can discover another user's uploaded avatar filename can delete that file. This issue has been patched in version 4.6.2.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the unauthorized deletion of user avatar files, which compromises data integrity for affected users. While this does not affect confidentiality or availability, it can degrade user experience and trust in the platform. In environments where user avatars are important for identity or branding, such unauthorized deletions could cause reputational damage or user dissatisfaction. Since exploitation requires authentication, the threat is limited to insiders or registered users, reducing the risk of widespread abuse. However, in organizations or communities with many users, an attacker could target multiple users’ avatars, causing broader disruption. The vulnerability does not enable access to sensitive data or system control, so the overall risk is moderate. Nonetheless, failure to patch could lead to persistent integrity issues and potential escalation if combined with other vulnerabilities.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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, 19:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats