VulnerabilityPublished 6 Aug 2026Updated 14 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-70559: DataLinkDC Dinky · Missing Authentication

Affects DataLinkDC DinkySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 6 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, 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.

ghsa-83jg-x5rh-3x8c

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
DataLinkDCDinky	Affected <=1.2.5	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official fix is available, restrict network access to the Dinky HTTP port (default 8888) to trusted users only. Avoid exposing the service to untrusted networks. Monitor for updates from DataLinkDC regarding patches or configuration changes that address this authentication bypass.

Description

Dinky's SysConfigController.getAll() handler for GET /api/sysConfig/getAll carries a method-level @SaIgnore annotation that short-circuits the class-level @SaCheckLogin, so the Sa-Token interceptor lets the request through with no session or role check. Any remote unauthenticated caller who can reach the Dinky HTTP port (8888 by default) receives the full live system configuration (54 entries on a stock v1.2.5 install) with one parameterless GET. Only one credential field (sys.maven.settings.repositoryPassword) has a desensitization handler wired; the other credential-bearing fields (sys.env.settings.dinkyToken, sys.ldap.settings.userPassword, sys.resource.settings.oss.accessKey and secretKey, and sys.dolphinscheduler.settings.token) return in cleartext. A bare install leaks the shipped defaults, including the hardcoded dinkyToken efda1551-7958-4e0f-80a8-dfd107df3e38 and minioadmin/minioadmin OSS keys; once an operator configures LDAP, object storage, or DolphinScheduler through the Settings Center, those live third-party credentials leak from the same endpoint. Because dinkyToken is the sole gate on the sibling POST /download/uploadFromRsByLocal arbitrary file write, this disclosure defeats token rotation as a mitigation for that vulnerability. Affects Dinky v1.2.5 (the current release, 2025-11-05) and the development branch (dev HEAD 63b5a5a), where the affected code is byte-identical.

Impact

An unauthenticated remote attacker can retrieve sensitive system configuration data, including multiple credential fields in cleartext, from the Dinky server. This exposure can lead to compromise of third-party services integrated with Dinky, such as LDAP, object storage, and DolphinScheduler. Additionally, the disclosure of the dinkyToken credential allows bypassing protections on an arbitrary file write vulnerability, increasing the risk of remote code execution or system compromise. The vulnerability affects confidentiality but does not directly impact integrity or availability.

Summary

The vulnerability CVE-2026-70559 in DataLinkDC's Dinky v1.2.5 involves the SysConfigController.getAll() handler for the GET /api/sysConfig/getAll endpoint. The method is annotated with @SaIgnore, which bypasses the class-level @SaCheckLogin authentication check, allowing unauthenticated access. As a result, any remote attacker who can reach the HTTP port (default 8888) can retrieve the entire system configuration, including sensitive credentials such as sys.env.settings.dinkyToken, LDAP user passwords, OSS access and secret keys, and DolphinScheduler tokens in cleartext. The shipped default includes hardcoded credentials like the dinkyToken and OSS keys. This exposure defeats token rotation mitigation for a related POST /download/uploadFromRsByLocal arbitrary file write vulnerability that relies on the dinkyToken for authorization. The affected code is byte-identical in the development branch as well.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (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 14 Aug 2026, 16:10 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats