Claude Code selected an API key stored by Claude Code, for example from an earlier /login or written directly to its configuration, ahead of the user's valid Claude Enterprise or Team sign-in when fetching the organization's server-managed settings, even though the session itself authenticated with the Enterprise or Team account. When the settings endpoint rejected that stored key, the session started without the organization's server-managed policy (such as permission deny rules, model restrictions and managed-only locks) or, if a previously cached copy existed on the machine, kept applying that stale copy without receiving later policy changes — while continuing to operate as the organization's account. Triggering this required local access to a device with such a stored API key; the no-policy case additionally required that no managed settings had previously been cached. Endpoint-managed (MDM or file-based) settings were not affected. Claude for Enterprise organizations were affected from version 2.0.68; Claude for Work (Team) organizations from version 2.1.38, when server-managed settings became available to them.
Users on standard Claude Code auto-update have received this fix already. Users performing manual updates are advised to update to version 2.1.260 or later.
Thank you to Tamas Voros / NVIDIA AI Red Team for reporting this issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (2.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 2.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 2.0 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it