VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32103: withstudiocms studiocms · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects withstudiocms studiocmsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 0.4.3 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.4.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 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 studiocms and withstudiocms/studiocms to 0.4.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
withstudiocmsstudiocms	Affected <0.4.3	Fixed in 0.4.3
GitHubwithstudiocms/studiocms`pkg:github/withstudiocms/studiocms`Other threats	Affected <0.4.3	Fixed in 0.4.3

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 StudioCMS to version 0.4.3 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrade is possible, organizations should strictly limit admin privileges to trusted personnel and enforce strong access controls and monitoring on admin accounts. Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all admin users to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Audit and log all password reset requests and admin actions to detect suspicious activity. Consider network segmentation to isolate the CMS from less trusted networks and restrict API access to known IP addresses. Review and harden password reset workflows and ensure that role hierarchy and user identity validations are enforced in custom or legacy CMS components. Regularly review user roles and permissions to minimize the number of admin accounts. Finally, conduct penetration testing to verify that no other authorization bypasses exist.

Description

CVE-2026-32103 is an authorization bypass vulnerability in StudioCMS versions prior to 0.4.3. It affects the POST /studiocms_api/dashboard/create-reset-link endpoint, allowing any authenticated admin user to generate password reset tokens for any other user, including the highest-privileged owner account. The vulnerability arises because the system verifies admin status but does not enforce role hierarchy or validate that the target userId matches the caller's identity. By combining this with the password reset endpoint, an attacker with admin privileges can fully take over the owner account. This flaw has a CVSS score of 6.8 (medium severity) and does not require user interaction. The vulnerability is fixed in version 0.4.

Impact

This vulnerability allows any authenticated admin user to escalate privileges by taking over the highest-privileged owner account, effectively compromising the entire StudioCMS installation. The attacker can reset the owner’s password, gain full control over the CMS, modify content, alter configurations, and potentially deploy malicious code or backdoors. This can lead to significant integrity breaches, loss of trust, and potential data manipulation or destruction. Since StudioCMS is a content management system, the impact extends to any websites or applications relying on it for content delivery, potentially affecting availability indirectly through malicious content or defacement. Organizations using vulnerable versions risk unauthorized administrative control, which can cascade into broader network compromise if the CMS is integrated with other systems. The medium CVSS score reflects that exploitation requires admin privileges, limiting immediate risk to insider threats or compromised admin accounts, but the impact on integrity and scope is severe.

CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-640Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
Architecture and Design
Make sure that all input supplied by the user to the password recovery mechanism is thoroughly filtered and validated.
Architecture and Design
Do not use standard weak security questions and use several security questions.
Architecture and Design
Make sure that there is throttling on the number of incorrect answers to a security question. Disable the password recovery functionality after a certain (small) number of incorrect guesses.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Choosing and Using Security Questions (opens in a new tab)
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Password Recovery Exploitation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/withstudiocms/studiocms/security/advisories/GHSA-h7vr-cg25-jf8c (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Mar 2026, 02:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639, CWE-640

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats