VulnerabilityPublished 27 May 2026Updated 10 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-45260: Pimcore · Missing Authorization in WebDAV MOVE via unchecked asset move handling

Affects pimcore/pimcoreSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 12.3.7 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 12.3.7, 2026.1.3, 11.5.17

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

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

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: 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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 May 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 29 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.
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 pimcore/pimcore to 12.3.7; pimcore/pimcore to 2026.1.3; pimcore/pimcore to 11.5.17.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Packagistpimcore/pimcore	Affected >=12.0.0-RC1 <12.3.7	Fixed in 12.3.7
Packagistpimcore/pimcore	Affected >=2026.1.0 <2026.1.3	Fixed in 2026.1.3
Packagistpimcore/pimcore	Affected <11.5.17	Fixed in 11.5.17

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

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, restrict access to the WebDAV endpoint and disable the built-in WebDAV route if not required. Monitor for unusual MOVE requests targeting asset paths. Avoid exposing asset paths publicly to reduce attack surface.

Description

### Summary Pimcore's WebDAV asset endpoint exposes a `MOVE` operation through `/asset/webdav{path}` without adding an authentication plugin in the WebDAV controller. The `Tree::move()` implementation then performs asset mutation and deletion before checking a current Pimcore user or any asset permissions. An unauthenticated remote attacker who knows two existing asset paths in the same directory can send a WebDAV `MOVE` request that deletes the source asset. Authenticated low-privileged users may also be able to perform unauthorized asset move or overwrite operations because the move path does not enforce `rename`, `delete`, `create`, or `publish` permissions. ### Details The route for WebDAV is globally registered and accepts arbitrary trailing paths: ```yaml # bundles/CoreBundle/config/routing.yaml pimcore_webdav: path: /asset/webdav{path} defaults: { _controller: Pimcore\Bundle\CoreBundle\Controller\WebDavController::webdavAction } requirements: path: '.*' ``` The controller constructs a SabreDAV server but only attaches lock and browser plugins. It does not attach an authentication plugin or perform an explicit user/session check before starting the server: ```php # bundles/CoreBundle/src/Controller/WebDavController.php $publicDir = new Asset\WebDAV\Folder($homeDir); $objectTree = new Asset\WebDAV\Tree($publicDir); $server = new \Sabre\DAV\Server($objectTree); $server->setBaseUri($this->generateUrl('pimcore_webdav', ['path' => '/'])); $server->addPlugin($lockPlugin); $server->addPlugin(new \Sabre\DAV\Browser\Plugin()); $server->start(); ``` Most WebDAV file and folder operations perform permission checks through `isAllowed()`, but `Tree::move()` does not. In the overwrite path for a same-directory move, it deletes the source asset before resolving the current user: ```php # models/Asset/WebDAV/Tree.php if (dirname($sourcePath) == dirname($destinationPath)) { if ($asset = Asset::getByPath('/' . $destinationPath)) { $sourceAsset = Asset::getByPath('/' . $sourcePath); $asset->setData($sourceAsset->getData()); $sourceAsset->delete(); } ... } $user = \Pimcore\Tool\Admin::getCurrentUser(); $asset->setUserModification($user->getId()); $asset->save(); ``` `Asset::delete()` removes the asset without an internal permission gate: ```php # models/Asset.php public function delete(bool $isNested = false): void { ... $this->getDao()->delete(); ... $this->deletePhysicalFile(); } ``` Because the source asset deletion happens before `$user->getId()`, an unauthenticated request can still cause a deletion even if later execution fails when no current user is present. ### PoC Prerequisites: - Pimcore 2026.1.0 with the built-in WebDAV route enabled. - Two existing asset paths in the same directory, for example `/products/source.jpg` and `/products/existing.jpg`. - No valid session is required for the unauthenticated deletion path. PoC request: ```http MOVE /asset/webdav/products/source.jpg HTTP/1.1 Host: target.example Destination: http://target.example/asset/webdav/products/existing.jpg Overwrite: T ``` Result: The server will return an error after the deletion because `Tree::move()` later attempts to call `$user->getId()` when no current user exists. However, the source asset at `/products/source.jpg` has already been deleted by `$sourceAsset->delete()` before that failure point. For an authenticated low-privileged backend user without sufficient asset permissions, the same request can also reach the unchecked move path and may overwrite the destination asset or move an asset without the expected per-asset permission checks. ### Impact This issue allows remote unauthorized destruction of assets when paths are known or guessable. In Pimcore deployments where assets represent product images, documents, media, or DAM-managed business content, deletion or unauthorized overwrite can cause data loss, content integrity loss, and service disruption.

Impact

Remote unauthenticated attackers can delete assets if they know two asset paths in the same directory, causing data loss and potential service disruption. Authenticated low-privileged users can move or overwrite assets without required permissions, leading to unauthorized content modification. This compromises asset integrity and availability in Pimcore deployments managing critical business content such as product images or documents.

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

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Jul 2026, 09:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats