VulnerabilityPublished 4 May 2026

CVE-2026-42223: 0xJacky nginx-ui · Information Exposure

Affects 0xJacky nginx-uiSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 2.3.8 when convenient.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.3.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 4 May 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 nginx-ui and 0xjacky/nginx-ui to 2.3.8.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
0xJackynginx-ui	Affected <2.3.8	Fixed in 2.3.8
GitHub0xjacky/nginx-ui`pkg:github/0xjacky/nginx-ui`Other threats	Affected <2.3.8	Fixed in 2.3.8

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade nginx-ui to version 2.3.8 or later where this issue is patched. Since the vulnerability is fixed in the official release, applying this update fully mitigates the risk. No other vendor advisories indicate alternative mitigations or that no action is required.

Description

CVE-2026-42223 is a vulnerability in 0xJacky's nginx-ui prior to version 2.3.8 where the GetSettings API handler exposes over 40 sensitive configuration fields to authenticated users. These fields include JwtSecret, NodeSecret, OIDC ClientSecret, and IP whitelist configurations. The issue arises because the protection tag on sensitive fields is enforced only during writes but ignored during reads, leading to unintended disclosure of sensitive information. This vulnerability has been patched in version 2.3.8. The CVSS score is 6.5, indicating a medium severity level.

Impact

Exposure of sensitive configuration data including authentication secrets (JwtSecret), cluster node secrets (NodeSecret), OAuth client secrets (OIDC ClientSecret), and IP whitelist settings to any authenticated user. This could enable token forgery, cluster node impersonation, OAuth account takeover, and bypass of IP-based access controls. There is no indication of active exploitation in the wild.

Summary

The vulnerability in nginx-ui versions before 2.3.8 involves the GetSettings API handler serializing all settings structs to JSON and returning them to authenticated users without properly enforcing the 'protected' tag on sensitive fields during reads. This results in exposure of sensitive data such as JwtSecret, NodeSecret, OIDC ClientSecret, and IP whitelist configurations. The flaw is due to the protection mechanism only being applied during writes (via ProtectedFill in SaveSettings) but not during reads, allowing unauthorized access to sensitive information. The issue was fixed in version 2.3.8.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (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 12 May 2026, 06:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats