VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32104: withstudiocms studiocms · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects withstudiocms studiocmsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 0.4.3 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% 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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: 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 impacted component 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 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

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade StudioCMS to version 0.4.3 or later, where the authorization check properly verifies that the authenticated user matches the target user ID before allowing notification preference updates. In addition to patching, administrators should audit user notification settings for any unauthorized changes, especially disabling of admin alerts, and restore them as needed. Implementing stricter access controls and monitoring on API endpoints can help detect and prevent unauthorized requests. Employing anomaly detection on notification configuration changes may also provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Organizations should enforce the principle of least privilege, ensuring users have only necessary permissions, and consider multi-factor authentication to reduce risk of account compromise. Regular security reviews and penetration testing of CMS APIs can help identify similar authorization issues proactively.

Description

CVE-2026-32104 is an authorization bypass vulnerability in withstudiocms's StudioCMS versions prior to 0.4.3. The updateUserNotifications endpoint allows any authenticated user to modify notification preferences for any other user by supplying an arbitrary user ID, without verifying ownership. This flaw enables attackers to disable admin notifications, potentially suppressing alerts of malicious activity. The vulnerability requires authentication but no user interaction beyond sending crafted requests. It impacts confidentiality indirectly by enabling stealthy attacks and affects integrity and availability of notification settings. The issue is fixed in version 0.4.3.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the unauthorized modification of notification preferences across user accounts, including administrators. By disabling admin notifications, attackers can suppress alerts that would normally signal suspicious or malicious activities, thereby increasing the risk of prolonged undetected intrusions or abuse within affected organizations. This undermines the integrity and availability of the notification system, potentially delaying incident response and remediation efforts. While direct data confidentiality is not compromised, the indirect effect of reduced visibility into security events can lead to broader security breaches. Organizations relying on StudioCMS for content management and administrative oversight may face increased risk of stealthy attacks, especially in environments where notifications are critical for security monitoring. The vulnerability requires authentication but no additional user interaction, making it easier for insiders or compromised accounts to exploit. Given the growing adoption of headless CMS platforms, the scope of affected systems could be significant in organizations using StudioCMS versions prior to 0.4.3.

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).

References

github.com/withstudiocms/studiocms/security/advisories/GHSA-9v82-xrm4-mp52 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Mar 2026, 02:22 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats