Questions For ConfluenceApplication · Atlassian
CVE-2022-26138
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe Atlassian Questions For Confluence app for Confluence Server and Data Center creates a Confluence user account in the confluence-users group with the username disabledsystemuser and a hardcoded password. A remote, unauthenticated attacker with knowledge of the hardcoded password could exploit this to log into Confluence and access all content accessible to users in the confluence-users group. This user account is created when installing versions 2.7.34, 2.7.35, and 3.0.2 of the app.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe Atlassian Questions For Confluence app for Confluence Server and Data Center contains a hardcoded backdoor account ('disabledsystemuser') with a static password created during installation of versions 2.7.34, 2.7.35, and 3.0.2. This account is automatically added to the confluence-users group, granting the attacker user-level access to all content viewable by regular Confluence users. A remote, unauthenticated attacker with knowledge of the hardcoded password can exploit this to bypass authentication.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Questions For ConfluenceApplication
= 2.7.34= 2.7.35= 3.0.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if Questions For Confluence app is installedAccess Confluence Administration > Manage add-ons or UPM (Universal Plugin Manager) and locate the Questions For Confluence app in the list of installed appsAffected if The app is not listed in installed add-ons, then this CVE does not apply
-
Determine installed version of Questions For Confluence appIn the Manage add-ons screen, locate the Questions For Confluence entry and note the version number displayed in the app details or version columnAffected if Version is exactly 2.7.34, 2.7.35, or 3.0.2 - these are the versions with the hardcoded backdoor
-
Check for the hardcoded user account in ConfluenceNavigate to Confluence Administration > User Management or Users and search for a user account named 'disabledsystemuser'Affected if A user account with username 'disabledsystemuser' exists in the Confluence user directory
-
Verify group membership of the backdoor accountWith the disabledsystemuser account found, check its group memberships - specifically look for membership in the 'confluence-users' groupAffected if The disabledsystemuser account is a member of the confluence-users group, which grants it access to content viewable by any authenticated user
If Questions For Confluence is installed at version 2.7.34, 2.7.35, or 3.0.2 AND a user account named 'disabledsystemuser' exists in the confluence-users group, the environment is affected by this backdoor vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedUpdate the Questions For Confluence app to a patched version that removes the hardcoded account, and verify the disabledsystemuser account has been removed from the system.
Latest version available from Atlassian Marketplace (version higher than 3.0.2)
- 1. Identify all Confluence Server and Data Center instances with the Questions For Confluence app installed
- 2. Check the installed version of Questions For Confluence - if it is 2.7.34, 2.7.35, or 3.0.2, the vulnerability is present
- 3. Upgrade Questions For Confluence to the latest version available from the Atlassian Marketplace
- 4. After upgrading, verify that the disabledsystemuser account has been removed or has its password changed
- 5. If the account still exists, manually remove it or change its password to a secure, unique value
- 6. Review access logs for any unauthorized access using the disabledsystemuser account
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Questions For Confluence
Exploited in the wild — priority engagement
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-26138 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-26138 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data