VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-31800: parse-server · Missing Authorization

Affects parse-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High : upgrade to 9.5.2-alpha.12 or 8.6.25 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.5.2-alpha.12, 8.6.25

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

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

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 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 parse-server to 9.5.2-alpha.12 or 8.6.25.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
parse-communityparse-server	Affected >=9.0.0 <9.5.2-alpha.12	Fixed in 9.5.2-alpha.12
parse-communityparse-server	Affected <8.6.25	Fixed in 8.6.25

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade parse-server to version 9.5.2-alpha.12 or later, or 8.6.25 or later, where the authorization checks on the generic REST API routes have been properly enforced. Until upgrades can be applied, organizations should implement network-level access controls to restrict access to parse-server REST API endpoints, especially the /classes/_GraphQLConfig and /classes/_Audience routes. Deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to block unauthorized access to these endpoints can reduce exposure. Additionally, monitoring API access logs for unusual or unauthorized requests targeting these internal classes can help detect exploitation attempts early. Developers should audit custom API routes and ensure that all sensitive endpoints enforce proper authentication and authorization. Finally, consider isolating parse-server instances behind VPNs or private networks to limit exposure to untrusted actors.

Description

Parse Server is an open source backend that can be deployed to any infrastructure that can run Node.js. Prior to 9.5.2-alpha.12 and 8.6.25, the _GraphQLConfig and _Audience internal classes can be read, modified, and deleted via the generic /classes/_GraphQLConfig and /classes/_Audience REST API routes without master key authentication. This bypasses the master key enforcement that exists on the dedicated /graphql-config and /push_audiences endpoints. An attacker can read, modify and delete GraphQL configuration and push audience data. This vulnerability is fixed in 9.5.2-alpha.12 and 8.6.25.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to bypass master key authentication and gain unauthorized access to critical internal configuration data. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive GraphQL schema and push audience information, compromising confidentiality. Attackers can also modify or delete these configurations, potentially causing denial of service or manipulation of application behavior, impacting integrity and availability. Organizations relying on parse-server for backend services may face data breaches, service disruptions, or loss of user trust. Since no authentication is required, automated attacks can be launched at scale, increasing the risk of widespread exploitation. The impact is particularly severe for applications that use GraphQL extensively or rely on push notifications for user engagement, as attackers can alter these mechanisms to their advantage.

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 10 Mar 2026, 21:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats