CVE-2026-27803

highPriorität · verfolgen · 0OT-Risiko · erhöhtEPSS 0.004 · 33. PerzentilDEEUUS
grimoire priorityP2 · Scheduled
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.40% (33rd) EPSS
CVSS 8.3 · high
Is it mine?
7 products
Prüfe deine Angriffsfläche
Who says so?
5 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · cert_bund · nvd

EPSS · bewertet 2026-10-23

Vaultwarden is an unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust, formerly known as bitwarden_rs. Prior to version 1.35.4, when a Manager has manage=false for a given collection, they can still perform several management operations as long as they have access to the collection. This issue has been patched in version 1.35.4.

01

cvss

Technischer Schweregrad, 0–10. Eine Zeile je Quelle.

8.3
010

Basiswert 0–10 · höher = schwerwiegender · Vektor überfahren zum Auflösen

v3.18.3highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:Lsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.18.3highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:Lsecondary · security-advisories@github.comAusnutzbarkeit 2.8 · Auswirkung 5.5
v3.18.3highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:Lsecondary · OSV
v3.17.6highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

SSVC

Eine Handlungsentscheidung — aus Ausnutzung und Auswirkung.

Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical Impact: totalcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

schwächen

Die CWE-Schwächeklassen, zu denen dies gehört.

04

betroffene Produkte (7)

Betroffene Produkte und Versionsbereiche.

05

Advisories (2)

Hersteller- und Ökosystem-Meldungen dazu.

  • WID-SEC-W-2026-0594Vaultwarden: Mehrere SchwachstellenDeutsch2026-03-04csaf · cert_bundDE

    Ein entfernter, authentisierter Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Vaultwarden ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, erweiterte Privilegien zu erlangen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen und Daten zu manipulieren.

  • GHSA-h4hq-rgvh-wh27Vaultwarden's Collection Management Operations Allowed Without `manage` Verification for Manager Role2026-03-04ghsa · osvUS

    ## Summary Testing confirmed that even when a Manager has `manage=false` for a given collection, they can still perform the following management operations as long as they have access to the collection: * `PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id>` succeeds (HTTP 200) * `PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id>/users` succeeds (HTTP 200) * `DELETE /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id>` succeeds (HTTP 200) ## Description * The Manager guard checks only whether the user **can access the collection**, not whether they have `manage` privileges. This check is directly applied to management endpoints. src/auth.rs:816 ```rust if !Collection::can_access_collection(&headers.membership, &col_id, &conn).await { err_handler!("The current user isn't a manager for this collection") } ``` * The `can_access_collection` function does **not** evaluate the `manage` flag. src/db/models/collection.rs:140 ```rust pub async fn can_access_collection(member: &Membership, col_id: &CollectionId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool { member.has_status(MembershipStatus::Confirmed) && (member.has_full_access() || CollectionUser::has_access_to_collection_by_user(col_id, &member.user_uuid, conn).await || ... ``` * A separate management-permission check exists and includes `manage` validation, but it is **not used** during authorization for the affected endpoints. src/db/models/collection.rs:516 ```rust pub async fn is_manageable_by_user(&self, user_uuid: &UserId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool { let Some(member) = Membership::find_confirmed_by_user_and_org(user_uuid, &self.org_uuid, conn).await else { return false; }; if member.has_full_access() { return true; } ... ``` * The actual update and deletion endpoints only accept `ManagerHeaders` and do not perform additional `manage` checks. src/api/core/organizations.rs:608 ```rust async fn put_organization_collection_update(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...) ``` src/api/core/organizations.rs:890 ```rust async fn put_collection_users(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...) ``` src/api/core/organizations.rs:747 ```rust async fn delete_organization_collection(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...) ``` ## Preconditions * The attacker is a **Manager** within the target organization. * The attacker has access to the target collection (`assigned=true`). * The attacker’s permission for that collection is `manage=false`. * A valid API access token has been obtained. ## Steps to Reproduce 1. Confirm that the attacker’s current permissions for the target collection include `manage=false`. <img width="2015" height="636" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/58ddc733-e37c-4766-a980-b1ea1918ceb4" /> 2. As a control test, verify that update operations fail for collections the attacker cannot access. <img width="2021" height="852" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d8699442-2dfc-4d73-8940-ec10f4a175f0" /> 3. Confirm that update operations succeed for the target collection where `manage=false`. <img width="2013" height="690" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/33d9845d-d18e-456c-a58c-e780911347a9" /> 4. Use `PUT /collections/{col_id}/users` to set `manage=true`, confirming that the attacker can escalate their own privileges. <img width="2018" height="488" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/da8c5246-cf2a-46c2-9a25-e99d907f852d" /> 5. Verify that deletion of the collection succeeds despite the Manager lacking management rights. <img width="2018" height="487" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a97c8fb2-4f97-4c2a-a90b-9d95dbde84fd" /> ## Required Minimum Privileges * Organization Manager role (Owner/Admin privileges are not required) * Works even with `access_all=false` * Only access rights to the target collection are required (`manage` privilege is not required) ## Attack Scenario A restricted Manager (intended for read/use-only access) directly invokes the API to update collection settings, elevate their own privileges to `manage=true`, and even delete the collection. This allows the user to bypass operational access restrictions and effectively gain administrator-equivalent control over the collection. ## Potential Impact * **Confidentiality:** Expansion of access scope through unauthorized privilege escalation and configuration changes. * **Integrity:** Unauthorized modification of collection settings and assignments; potential disabling of access controls. * **Availability:** Deletion of collections may disrupt business operations.

06

auch bekannt als (3)

Weitere Namen und Kennungen dieser Entität.

07

quellen

Welche Quellen diesen Datensatz belegen und wann.

veröffentlicht 2026-03-04geändert 2026-06-17
08

Referenzen (5)

Externe Belege — Patches, Meldungen, Analysen.

scry

Angreifer nutzen Schwachstellen wie diese gegen im Internet exponierte Dienste aus. Sehen Sie mit einem kostenlosen Passiv-Scan, was exponiert ist.

Kostenloser Scan