VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32106: withstudiocms studiocms · Improper Privilege Management

Affects withstudiocms studiocmsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium : upgrade to 0.4.3 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% 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:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: 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 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 upgrade StudioCMS to version 0.4.3 or later, where the inconsistent rank checks have been corrected. Until upgrading is possible, restrict administrative access to trusted personnel only and monitor user creation activities closely, especially via the REST API. Implement strict API access controls and logging to detect anomalous account creation patterns. Employ role-based access control (RBAC) policies externally to limit the number of users with administrative privileges. Additionally, consider network segmentation to restrict access to the REST API endpoints to trusted internal networks or VPNs. Regularly audit user accounts and remove any unauthorized or suspicious admin accounts. Finally, integrate StudioCMS logs with centralized security monitoring solutions to enable timely detection of privilege escalation attempts.

Description

CVE-2026-32106 is a medium severity privilege management vulnerability in StudioCMS versions prior to 0.4.3. The issue arises from inconsistent rank checks between the REST API and Dashboard API when creating user accounts. Specifically, the REST API uses string-based rank checks that only block creation of owner accounts, while the Dashboard API uses indexOf-based rank comparisons to prevent creating users at or above the caller's rank. This inconsistency allows an authenticated admin to create additional admin accounts via the REST API, leading to privilege escalation and persistence. No user interaction is required beyond authentication, and the vulnerability is fixed in version 0.4.3. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized privilege escalation and persistence within StudioCMS environments. An attacker with administrative access can create additional admin accounts, potentially circumventing internal controls and audit trails. This can lead to unauthorized changes to content, configuration, or user management, undermining the integrity and availability of the CMS. Organizations relying on StudioCMS for content delivery may face risks of data tampering, unauthorized content publication, or disruption of services. Although exploitation requires existing admin privileges, the ability to proliferate admin accounts increases the attack surface and complicates incident response. This vulnerability could facilitate insider threats or lateral movement within compromised environments. Given StudioCMS's niche but growing adoption, the impact is significant for organizations using affected versions, especially those with sensitive or high-value content management needs.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that 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
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
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)
Secure Design Principles (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
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/withstudiocms/studiocms/security/advisories/GHSA-wj56-g96r-673q (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-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats