VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-93650: Saleor · Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts

Affects SaleorSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS

0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: Proof of concept is public or traded
Automatable: Attackers cannot reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-09-18.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CISA SSVC: proof of concept public
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

CVE ID reserved
by VulDB
18 Sep 202613:07 UTC, 5 hours before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
18 Sep 202618:15 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
18 Sep 202619:47 UTC, 2 hours after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA SSVC, 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Saleor	Affected 3.20.118 – 3.23.14 119 affected builds	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:saleor:saleor:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

The vendor advises ensuring correct configuration of the X-Forwarded-For header to prevent IP spoofing. Monitoring the vendor's repository for the proposed fix involving RFC 7239 hop selection is recommended. Until then, administrators should validate proxy and load balancer configurations to ensure accurate client IP detection.

Description

CVE-2026-93650 is a medium severity vulnerability in Saleor versions up to 3.23.14 affecting the get_client_ip function in saleor/account/throttling.py. It involves improper restriction of excessive authentication attempts due to IP address spoofing possibilities. The vulnerability requires a high complexity attack and is difficult to exploit. The vendor states this behavior is intended, relying on proper configuration of the X-Forwarded-For (XFF) header. A proposed fix involving RFC 7239 hop selection is unmerged. No official patch is available.

Impact

An attacker can potentially bypass authentication attempt throttling by spoofing the client IP address, which may allow more authentication attempts than intended. This could increase the risk of brute force or credential stuffing attacks. However, exploitation is difficult and requires high complexity. The vendor does not classify this as a vulnerability if XFF is configured properly.

Summary

This vulnerability in Saleor's get_client_ip function allows an attacker to bypass throttling of excessive authentication attempts by spoofing the client IP address, exploiting the reliance on the X-Forwarded-For header. The issue arises because the IP can be spoofed in most deployments, and the current implementation does not properly select the correct IP from the header. The vendor considers this expected behavior, requiring correct XFF configuration. A fix has been proposed but not merged. The attack is remote, requires high complexity, and is difficult to exploit. Public disclosure exists but no known exploits in the wild.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…