VulnerabilityPublished 7 Aug 2026Updated 10 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-47663: aehrc pathling · Improper Authorization

Affects aehrc pathlingSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 2.0.0 soon.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.0.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 7 Aug 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 5 Nov 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 pathling and aehrc/pathling to 2.0.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
aehrcpathling	Affected <2.0.0	Fixed in 2.0.0
GitHubaehrc/pathling`pkg:github/aehrc/pathling`Other threats	Affected <2.0.0	Fixed in 2.0.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to Pathling Server version 2.0.0 or later, where this improper authorization issue is fixed by enforcing the documented per-resource read and write authorities consistently across all typed CRUD/search/batch handlers. Patch status is not explicitly stated beyond this fix version, so verify with the vendor advisory for any additional guidance.

Description

Pathling is a set of tools that make it easier to use FHIR and clinical terminology within health data analytics. Prior to version 2.0.0 of Pathling Server, Pathling's typed CRUD/search/batch FHIR surface allows an authenticated caller with only coarse operation authorities to act on attacker-chosen resource families because those entrypoints do not consistently enforce the documented per-resource `read` and `write` authorities. The documented authorization model requires an operation authority (e.g. `pathling:search`) to be paired with the matching per-resource `read` or `write` authority (e.g. `pathling:read:Patient`). Delete and batch are documented to require write authority for all referenced resource types. However, typed search, update, and related handlers are annotated only with `@OperationAccess(...)` and act on the provider-selected resource type without checking the corresponding per-resource authority. This is fixed in Pathling Server 2.0.0.

Impact

An attacker with authenticated access and coarse operation authority can perform unauthorized read or write actions on FHIR resource families that they should not have access to. This could lead to unauthorized disclosure or modification of sensitive health data within the Pathling Server environment. The CVSS 4.0 base score is 8.7 (high), reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and high impact on confidentiality.

Summary

Pathling Server versions before 2.0.0 have an improper authorization vulnerability (CWE-285) where the typed CRUD/search/batch FHIR interfaces allow authenticated callers with general operation authorities (e.g., pathling:search) to act on attacker-chosen resource families without verifying the required per-resource read or write authorities (e.g., pathling:read:Patient). While delete and batch operations require write authority for all referenced resource types, typed search and update handlers only check operation-level access annotations and omit per-resource authority checks. This inconsistency permits unauthorized access or modification of resources. The vulnerability is resolved in Pathling Server 2.0.0.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/aehrc/pathling/security/advisories/GHSA-q62q-2m46-r7rv (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Aug 2026, 15:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats