CVE-2026-88863VulnerabilityPublished 09/10/2026

CVE-2026-88863: Cap-go capgo.app · Improper Privilege Management

Affects Cap-go capgo.appSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High.

Data as of 10/25/2026, 16:58:58 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence 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 10 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq 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 2026-10-25.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Cap-gocapgo.app	Affected <=12.207.1	Fixed in–
npmcapgo`pkg:npm/capgo`Other threats	Affected <12.207.2	Fixed in 12.207.2

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

AI-suggested

The issue is addressed by pull request #3096, which adds role rank comparison before permitting elevated invitations. Until an official fix is released, restrict permissions to trusted users and monitor invitation activities closely.

Description

capgo.app (npm package `capgo`) through version 12.207.1 does not compare the caller's role rank against the requested role in the validateInvite() function of supabase/functions/_backend/private/invite_new_user_to_org.ts. The POST /private/invite_new_user_to_org endpoint only requires the org.update_user_roles permission for org_super_admin invitations, so an authenticated user holding only the org.invite_user permission (e.g., an org_member) can invite an external user as org_admin or org_billing_admin. When the invited account accepts the invitation via POST /private/accept_invitation, ensureOrgMembership creates the role binding using the Supabase service-role key, which bypasses the prevent_role_binding_priority_escalation and check_org_user_privileges database triggers. This allows privilege escalation resulting in full administrative control over the organization's apps, channels, members, and billing. The issue is addressed by pull request #3096, which compares the inviter's rank before permitting elevated invitations.

Impact

An attacker with authenticated access and the org.invite_user permission can escalate privileges by inviting external users with higher roles such as org_admin or org_billing_admin. This leads to full administrative control over the organization's applications, communication channels, membership, and billing information. The vulnerability compromises the integrity and confidentiality of organizational resources.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…