VulnerabilityPublished 4 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-86041: mayswind ezbookkeeping · Use of Less Trusted Source

Affects mayswind ezbookkeepingSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.6.0 when convenient.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 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 (GitHub_M)	CVSS 4.0	5.3

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to 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 4 Nov 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 mayswind ezbookkeeping to 1.6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
mayswindezbookkeeping	Affected >=0.10.0 <1.6.0	Fixed in 1.6.0

AI-suggested

Upgrade ezBookkeeping to version 1.6.0 or later, where the issue is fixed by properly configuring trusted proxies in the Gin router. No other mitigations are indicated or required.

Description

ezBookkeeping versions from 0.10.0 up to but not including 1.6.0 use the Gin web framework without properly configuring trusted proxies. This causes the application to trust spoofed X-Forwarded-For headers, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to bypass IP-based access controls by supplying a spoofed allowlisted IP address. Although a valid MCP or API token is still required for protected actions, the spoofed IP is logged and stored, misattributing activity to trusted hosts. The issue is fixed in version 1.6.0.

Impact

An attacker can spoof an allowlisted IP address to bypass IP-based access controls, potentially enabling unauthorized access to certain application gates. However, valid MCP or API tokens are still required for protected actions, limiting the scope of unauthorized operations. The spoofed IP is logged and stored, which can cause inaccurate attribution of user activity and complicate forensic investigations.

Summary

The vulnerability in ezBookkeeping (CVE-2026-86041) arises from improper configuration of the Gin router where SetTrustedProxies is not set, causing c.ClientIP() to trust the X-Forwarded-For header without validation. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to spoof an allowlisted IP address and bypass IP-based restrictions such as mcp_allowed_remote_ips or api_token_allowed_remote_ips. Despite the need for valid MCP or API tokens for protected actions, the spoofed IP is recorded in Transaction.CreatedIp and request logs, potentially misleading audit trails. The flaw affects versions >=0.10.0 and <1.6.0 and is resolved in version 1.6.0.

CWE-348Use of Less Trusted Source (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resistant to attack.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
DNS Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
User-Controlled Filename (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (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 4 Nov 2026, 23:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-348

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats