VulnerabilityPublished 10 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-88894: grokability snipe-it · Incorrect Authorization

Affects grokability snipe-itSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 8.7.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.7.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/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: Low
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: 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 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 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 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 26 Oct 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 snipe-it and grokability/snipe-it to 8.7.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
grokabilitysnipe-it	Affected <8.7.2	Fixed in 8.7.2
GitHubgrokability/snipe-it`pkg:github/grokability/snipe-it`Other threats	Affected <8.7.2	Fixed in 8.7.2

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Snipe-IT version 8.7.2. Users should upgrade to this version or later to remediate the vulnerability. Since no official remediation level or patch links are provided beyond this, checking the vendor advisory for confirmation and further guidance is recommended.

Description

Snipe-IT's predefined kit checkout path does not enforce Full Multiple Company Support (FMCS) tenant isolation on the checkout target. Unlike the single, bulk, API, accessory, license and consumable checkout paths, App\Services\PredefinedKitCheckoutService never calls $item->canCheckoutTo($target); it only performs the actor-vs-item policy check and an availability check before persisting the checkout. With FMCS enabled, a non-superuser who belongs to at least two companies and holds the assets.checkout permission can POST to /kits/{kit}/checkout with a user_id belonging only to company B and have a company-A asset (and likewise kit licenses, consumables and accessories) assigned to that user, bypassing the company-mismatch check that blocks the same operation on every other checkout path. The issue is fixed in Snipe-IT 8.7.2; it was runtime-verified on v8.6.3 and code-inspected on v8.7.1, and the affected service has lacked the check since 2019, so earlier FMCS deployments are likely also affected.

Impact

An attacker who is a non-superuser but belongs to multiple companies and has the assets.checkout permission can assign assets, licenses, consumables, and accessories to users in a different company than the asset's origin. This breaks tenant isolation in FMCS setups, potentially leading to unauthorized asset assignments across company boundaries. There is no indication of privilege escalation beyond this scope or direct data disclosure.

Summary

The vulnerability in Snipe-IT arises because the PredefinedKitCheckoutService does not enforce the canCheckoutTo($target) check, unlike other checkout paths. This omission allows users with assets.checkout permission who belong to multiple companies to assign assets from one company to a user in another company, bypassing tenant isolation controls. The flaw affects FMCS-enabled deployments and has existed since 2019. It was runtime-verified on version 8.6.3 and code-inspected on 8.7.1. The issue is resolved in version 8.7.2.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Sep 2026, 13:54 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats