VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-53639: Sylius · IDOR on Shop Payment Request API endpoints

Affects sylius/syliusSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.0.18 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.0.18, 2.1.15, 2.2.6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: 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 9 Jul 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 sylius/sylius to 2.0.18; sylius/sylius to 2.1.15; sylius/sylius to 2.2.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Packagistsylius/sylius	Affected >=2.0.0 <2.0.18	Fixed in 2.0.18
Packagistsylius/sylius	Affected >=2.1.0 <2.1.15	Fixed in 2.1.15
Packagistsylius/sylius	Affected >=2.2.0 <2.2.6	Fixed in 2.2.6

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

AI-suggested

Official patches fixing this vulnerability are available in Sylius versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. Users should upgrade to these or later versions to remediate the issue. Until upgrading, apply the provided workaround by implementing a query extension that enforces ownership checks on payment request API endpoints, ensuring that authenticated users can only access their own payment requests and anonymous users can only access guest orders. This workaround prevents unauthorized access and modification of payment requests.

Description

Sylius versions prior to 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6 contain an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in the Shop Payment Request API endpoints. The GET and PUT endpoints for payment requests identify resources solely by a UUID hash without verifying ownership by the authenticated user. This allows an attacker who obtains a payment request hash to read sensitive order information and modify payment request redirect URLs to attacker-controlled destinations. The POST endpoint for creating payment requests similarly lacks ownership verification. The vulnerability requires obtaining the UUID hash out-of-band but does not require further authentication once the hash is known. Official patches are available in the fixed versions. A workaround involves adding query extensions to enforce ownership checks on payment request access.

Impact

An attacker who obtains a payment request UUID hash can read sensitive payment request and order information without authentication, including customer email and order details. They can also modify payment request redirect URLs to attacker-controlled destinations, potentially intercepting buyers after payment. The vulnerability allows unauthorized data disclosure and manipulation of payment request data. Exploitation requires out-of-band acquisition of the UUID hash but no further credentials or order tokens are needed. This poses a moderate risk of unauthorized access and redirection attacks.

Summary

The Sylius Shop Payment Request API endpoints GET /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash} and PUT /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash} do not verify that the authenticated customer owns the payment request identified by the UUID hash in the URL. Consequently, an attacker who obtains a payment request hash can access payment request details and retrieve the underlying order tokenValue, granting access to full order data including items, addresses, and customer email. The attacker can also modify the payment request payload fields such as target_path and after_path to redirect users to attacker-controlled URLs. The POST endpoint for creating payment requests similarly resolves orders by tokenValue without ownership verification. The vulnerability is fixed in Sylius versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. Until upgrading, a workaround involves implementing a Doctrine query extension to enforce ownership checks, restricting access to payment requests to their rightful owners or guest orders only.

CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (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 10 Jul 2026, 09:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats