VulnerabilityPublished 7 Oct 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-46434: wger · Trainer Privilege Escalation - Improper Privilege Management

Affects wgerSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-46434· High 7.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Oct 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIwger	Affected <=2.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Users of wger should monitor the vendor's advisory for updates. Until a fix is available, restrict assignment of the gym_trainer role to trusted users only and consider implementing custom access controls to enforce privilege hierarchy. Review and limit permissions to prevent trainers from deactivating higher-privileged accounts.

Description

A privilege escalation vulnerability in wger allows a user with the gym_trainer role to deactivate accounts of other users within the same gym, including those with higher privileges such as gym_manager and general_gym_manager. This occurs because the UserDeactivateView grants access if the user has any one of several permissions, including gym.gym_trainer, without verifying privilege hierarchy. Consequently, trainers can deactivate managers' accounts, effectively locking them out. The same issue exists in UserActivateView. The vulnerability affects wger versions up to and including 2.1 and has a CVSS score of 7.1 (high severity).

Impact

An attacker with gym_trainer permissions can deactivate accounts of higher-privileged users within the same gym, such as gym_manager and general_gym_manager. This results in denial of service for those users, preventing them from logging in and performing their management duties. The vulnerability undermines role-based access control and privilege separation within the wger application, potentially disrupting gym operations and administrative control.

Summary

The wger application has an improper privilege management vulnerability (CWE-269) identified as CVE-2026-46434. The UserDeactivateView uses a permission mixin that grants access if the user has any one of the permissions gym.manage_gym, gym.manage_gyms, or gym.gym_trainer. This OR logic allows a gym_trainer to deactivate any user in the same gym, including gym_manager and general_gym_manager accounts, without checking if the target user has higher privileges. The dispatch method only checks that the target user belongs to the same gym but does not enforce privilege hierarchy. The vulnerability also exists in UserActivateView. Additionally, gym managers can create trainer accounts, which can then be used to deactivate the manager who created them. A proof-of-concept demonstrates that a trainer can deactivate a manager by simply accessing the deactivate endpoint for the manager's user ID.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (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 26 Oct 2026, 16:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats