EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo fix is confirmed yet: check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 7.7Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (rami.io GmbH) lists pretix versions 4.14.0 up to but not including 2026.3.5, 2026.4.0 up to but not including 2026.4.5 and 2026.5.0 up to but not including 2026.5.3; pretix-mollie versions before 2.5.7; pretix-oppwa versions before 1.4.4 as affected, and 5 more products. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
We found a chain of combining multiple weaknesses in the product that could allow an attacker to become any user in the backend and access any data:
*
The payment integration plugins Stripe (included in the core system), pretix-mollie, pretix-oppwa, pretix-bitpay, pretix-payone, pretix-secuconnect, pretix-sofort, and pretix-saferpay
contain a code path that is intended for the transport of session
parameters from a tab with isolated cookies (e.g. in the pretix widget)
to a new tab. For this purpose, a set of session parameters is
cryptographically signed and then passed to the new tab as a URL
parameter. The plugins perform no further validation of the session
parameters, other than the cryptographic signature being valid. This is
fixed with the releases issued today by strictly validating that no
session parameters outside of the scope of the respective plugin may be
set.
*
An unrelated feature in the core system is used to generate redirect links that obfuscate any Referer
headers for outgoing links to prevent leakage of secrets in URLs. This
redirect page also requires cryptographically signed parameters.
Unfortunately, it uses the same key and salt for the signature as the
previously mentioned feature in the payment integration plugins. A
motivated attacker with access to at least one event in the backend can
trick the system into cryptographically signing arbitrary content using
specially crafted links. In combination with the previous issue, the
attacker could use this to set and modify arbitrary parameters on their
user session by injecting the signed parameters into the feature of the
payment providers. This is fixed with the releases issued today by using
different salts for the signature for each plugin and feature.
*
A third, unrelated feature in the core system is used for admin users
to act on behalf of another user, mostly for debugging purposes. With
being able to insert arbitrary parameters into a session, an attacker
can abuse this feature to change their session from their actual user to
any user in the system by guessing a valid user ID. This is fixed with
the release today by requiring unguessable information to be contained
in the session of the user to switch to.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.7 HIGHCVSS-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
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
No fix is confirmed yet. Check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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