GHSA-f7hx-52q9-hcrf CVE-2026-105859

Payload: Unauthorized update to collection documents

Critical npm

Severity: 9.8 / 10; Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.35%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.27% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key; CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix: 3.90.0; Upgrade payload to this version or later

Description

Impact

An attacker can submit a request to a specific endpoint that permits collection documents to be updated regardless of access control and field level access control.

You are affected if:

You are configuring orderable: true with any collection or join field.

Patches

In the patched version access control is properly enforced.

Users should upgrade Payload packages to >= 3.90.0 or >= 4.0.0-canary.34.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
payload	`< 3.90.0`	`3.90.0`
payload	`>= 4.0.0-canary.0, < 4.0.0-canary.34`	`4.0.0-canary.34`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

payload npm → `3.90.0`

npm

npm install payload@3.90.0

yarn

yarn add payload@3.90.0

pnpm

pnpm add payload@3.90.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 9.8

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

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

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.

How to prevent it

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.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it

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) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
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. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-105859

Packages

github.com/payloadcms/payload

Timeline

Oct 6, 2026 Published
Oct 15, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-9qpg-3cf8-w33x Payload: Uploaded XML files could execute same-origin JavaScript	High	Also affects payload
GHSA-v5gf-vpjc-pc7w Payload: Unauthenticated account-lockout denial of service	High	Also affects payload
GHSA-p223-2wr2-j562 Payload: Incomplete validation during the upload file lifecycle	High	Also affects payload
GHSA-66wr-7vmr-p5jq Payload authentication token field handling issue	Critical	Also affects payload
GHSA-2pwp-2369-8fg3 Payload: Bypassed sanitization of user uploaded SVGs	High	Also affects payload
GHSA-pj5h-5q6c-3pfx Payload external upload trust validation issue	High	Also affects payload
GHSA-97rh-rhh2-7vjv Payload: Remote Code Execution through first-register	High	Also affects payload
GHSA-fx49-4h83-wjv9 Payload didn't enforce field-level password update restrictions	High	Also affects payload

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor