VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32943: parse-server · Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition

Affects parse-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low : upgrade to 9.6.0-alpha.28 or 8.6.48 when convenient.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.6.0-alpha.28, 8.6.48

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to 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 18 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 31 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.28 or 8.6.48; parse-community/parse-server to 8.6.48.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
parse-communityparse-server	Affected >=9.0.0 <9.6.0-alpha.28	Fixed in 9.6.0-alpha.28
parse-communityparse-server	Affected <8.6.48	Fixed in 8.6.48
GitHubparse-community/parse-server`pkg:github/parse-community/parse-server`Other threats	Affected <8.6.48	Fixed in 8.6.48

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

AI-suggested

The only effective mitigation is to upgrade parse-server to version 9.6.0-alpha.28 or later, or 8.6.48 or later, where the password reset token consumption is atomic and race conditions are eliminated. Organizations should audit their deployments to identify affected versions and plan immediate upgrades. Until upgraded, organizations should monitor password reset activities for anomalies such as multiple reset attempts in a short time frame and consider additional logging and alerting on reset token usage. Implementing network-level protections to prevent interception of reset tokens, such as enforcing HTTPS/TLS for all communications and using secure email delivery mechanisms, can reduce the risk of token interception. Additionally, educating users about phishing risks and encouraging multi-factor authentication (MFA) can mitigate the impact of compromised accounts. However, these are compensating controls and do not fix the underlying vulnerability. No configuration changes or patches other than upgrading are available. Testing the upgrade in staging environments before production deployment is recommended to ensure compatibility.

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 and 8.6.48, the password reset mechanism does not enforce single-use guarantees for reset tokens. When a user requests a password reset, the generated token can be consumed by multiple concurrent requests within a short time window. An attacker who has intercepted a password reset token can race the legitimate user's password reset request, causing both requests to succeed. This may result in the legitimate user believing their password was changed successfully while the attacker's password takes effect instead. All Parse Server deployments that use the password reset feature are affected. Starting in versions 9.6.0 and 8.6.48, the password reset token is now atomically validated and consumed as part of the password update operation. The database query that updates the password includes the reset token as a condition, ensuring that only one concurrent request can successfully consume the token. Subsequent requests using the same token will fail because the token has already been cleared. There is no known workaround other than upgrading.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized account takeover through the password reset mechanism. An attacker who intercepts a reset token can replace the legitimate user’s password, locking out the rightful owner and gaining full access to the account. This compromises the integrity of user accounts and can lead to further exploitation such as data theft, privilege escalation, or fraudulent activities within the compromised account. Organizations relying on parse-server for backend services that include user authentication and password reset functionality are at risk. The impact is limited to accounts where password reset tokens can be intercepted, which may require network-level access or phishing. There is no direct impact on system-wide availability or confidentiality beyond the affected accounts. However, compromised accounts in sensitive environments can lead to significant operational and reputational damage. Since parse-server is widely used in various applications worldwide, any organization using vulnerable versions should consider the risk significant for their user base. The low CVSS score reflects the difficulty of exploitation and limited scope, but the targeted impact on account integrity can be severe for affected users.

Summary

CVE-2026-32943 is a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition vulnerability classified under CWE-367, found in the password reset mechanism of parse-community's parse-server, an open-source backend platform for Node.js environments. In affected versions (>= 9.0.0, < 9.6.0-alpha.28 and < 8.6.48), the password reset tokens are not enforced as single-use tokens atomically. When a user requests a password reset, a token is generated and sent to the user. However, due to the race condition, multiple concurrent requests using the same token can be processed before the token is invalidated. An attacker who intercepts or obtains the reset token can exploit this by racing the legitimate password reset request, causing both requests to succeed. This results in the attacker’s password being set instead of the legitimate user’s, effectively hijacking the account. The root cause is that the token validation and consumption are not atomic operations, allowing a window where multiple requests can validate the same token. The fix implemented in versions 9.6.0-alpha.28 and 8.6.48 involves atomically validating and consuming the token within the password update database query, ensuring only one request can succeed with the token. This eliminates the race window and enforces single-use token semantics. No exploits are currently known in the wild. The vulnerability’s CVSS 4.0 score is 2.3, reflecting a low severity due to the complexity of exploitation, requirement for user interaction, and lack of impact on confidentiality or availability beyond the affected account’s integrity.

CWE-367Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
Implementation
The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
Implementation
When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
Architecture and Design
Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.3 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Race Conditions via Symbolic Links (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (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 26 Mar 2026, 01:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-367

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats