VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-81178: Syslifters sysreptor · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Syslifters sysreptorSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low : upgrade to 2026.55 when convenient.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 10:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

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 2026.55

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 18 Sep 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 2 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 sysreptor and syslifters/sysreptor to 2026.55.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Syslifterssysreptor	Affected <2026.55	Fixed in 2026.55
GitHubsyslifters/sysreptor`pkg:github/syslifters/sysreptor`Other threats	Affected <2026.55	Fixed in 2026.55

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to SysReptor version 2026.55 or later, where this authorization issue has been fixed. No other mitigation is required as the vendor has provided an official fix.

Description

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2026.55, an unauthenticated holder of a public note share link receives project-wide collaborative editing metadata because the public share consumer joins the same collaboration group as authenticated project members and forwards client information, connection, awareness, and deletion events without consistently restricting them to the shared note subtree. The disclosed metadata can identify project members through usernames and names and reveal the identifiers and live editing activity of notes that were not shared. The content of non-shared notes remains protected, and the issue does not grant write access. This issue is fixed in version 2026.55.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthorized disclosure of project-wide collaborative metadata, including usernames and live editing activity of notes not intended for public sharing. This could lead to privacy concerns and exposure of project member identities. However, the actual content of non-shared notes remains confidential, and no unauthorized write or modification capabilities are granted.

Summary

SysReptor, a pentest reporting platform, had an authorization flaw where unauthenticated users accessing a public note share link were inadvertently included in the same collaboration group as authenticated project members. This caused the system to forward client information, connection, awareness, and deletion events beyond the intended shared note subtree. As a result, sensitive metadata such as project member identities and live editing activity of non-shared notes were exposed. The vulnerability does not allow unauthorized content modification. The flaw was resolved in version 2026.55.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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 access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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)
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 18 Sep 2026, 18:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats