VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026Updated 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-31872: parse-server · Improper Access Control

Affects parse-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 9.6.0-alpha.6 or 8.6.32 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.6.0-alpha.6, 8.6.32

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 11 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 9.6.0-alpha.6 or 8.6.32; parse-community/parse-server to 8.6.32.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
parse-communityparse-server	Affected >=9.0.0 <9.6.0-alpha.6	Fixed in 9.6.0-alpha.6
parse-communityparse-server	Affected <8.6.32	Fixed in 8.6.32
npmparse-community/parse-server`pkg:npm/parse-community/parse-server`Other threats	Affected <8.6.32 =9.6.0-alpha.6	Fixed in 8.6.32

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade parse-server to version 9.6.0-alpha.6 or later, or 8.6.32 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Until upgrades can be applied, administrators should audit and restrict network access to parse-server instances, limiting exposure to trusted networks or VPNs. Review and tighten class-level permissions and protectedFields configurations to minimize sensitive data exposure. Implement monitoring and alerting for unusual query patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts involving dot-notation queries or sorting. Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious query parameters using dot-notation. Conduct thorough security testing and code reviews on custom parse-server extensions or cloud functions that may interact with protected fields. Maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any suspected data leakage. Finally, keep parse-server and its dependencies regularly updated to incorporate security fixes.

Description

Parse Server is an open source backend that can be deployed to any infrastructure that can run Node.js. Prior to 9.6.0-alpha.6 and 8.6.32, the protectedFields class-level permission (CLP) can be bypassed using dot-notation in query WHERE clauses and sort parameters. An attacker can use dot-notation to query or sort by sub-fields of a protected field, enabling a binary oracle attack to enumerate protected field values. This affects both MongoDB and PostgreSQL deployments. This vulnerability is fixed in 9.6.0-alpha.6 and 8.6.32.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthorized attackers to bypass class-level permissions and access sensitive sub-field data that should be protected. This can lead to significant confidentiality breaches, exposing sensitive user or application data stored in protected fields. The binary oracle attack method may allow attackers to enumerate or infer sensitive information even if direct data access is not possible, increasing the risk of data leakage. Since parse-server is widely used in mobile and web backend applications, exploitation could compromise user privacy, intellectual property, or business-critical information. The lack of authentication or user interaction requirements means attackers can exploit this remotely and anonymously, potentially leading to large-scale data exposure. Organizations relying on vulnerable parse-server versions face increased risk of data breaches, regulatory non-compliance, reputational damage, and potential financial losses. The vulnerability does not directly impact data integrity or availability but the confidentiality impact alone is substantial.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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 18 Mar 2026, 19:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats