VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jul 2026Updated 8 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-59097: taiga-back · Missing Authorization

Affects taiga-backSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 6.10.2 when convenient.

Data as of 14 Nov 2026, 20:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 3.1	5.3
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 4.0	6.9

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.10.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Jul 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 14 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.

cwe-862

What to do

Upgrade taiga-back to 6.10.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
taigataiga-back	Affected <6.10.2	Fixed in 6.10.2
GitHubtaiga-back`pkg:github/taiga-back`Other threats	Affected <6.10.2	Fixed in 6.10.2

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

AI-suggested

Until then, restrict access to the affected API endpoints if possible or implement additional access controls to prevent unauthenticated POST requests to due-date endpoints.

Description

Taiga before 6.10.2 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to create default due-date records in any project by exploiting unprotected POST endpoints on the user-story, task, and issue due-date API viewsets. Attackers can supply an arbitrary project identifier to these endpoints, which bypass permission checks and apply the AllowAny default, to pre-empt project administrators from initializing due dates by creating records before they can do so themselves.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthenticated attackers to create or pre-empt due-date records in projects they do not have access to. While it does not disclose sensitive data or allow direct modification of existing data, it impacts the integrity of project scheduling by allowing unauthorized insertion of due dates. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability reported. The CVSS score of 5.3 reflects a medium severity with low attack complexity and no privileges required.

Summary

CVE-2026-59097 describes a missing authorization vulnerability in Taiga before version 6.10.2. The vulnerability exists in the taiga-back service where certain POST API endpoints related to due-date management for user stories, tasks, and issues do not enforce proper permission checks. Instead, these endpoints apply an AllowAny default, enabling unauthenticated remote attackers to create due-date records in any project by supplying arbitrary project identifiers. This bypasses intended authorization controls and can disrupt project management workflows.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…