High EPSSRemotely reachableNo privilegesZero-clickPatch available
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 · unedited
An Authentication Bypass vulnerability (CWE-288) in Ivanti Sentry before the R10.5.2, R10.6.2 and R10.7.1 versions allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to create arbitrary administrative accounts and obtain full administrative access
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 confidence
An authentication bypass vulnerability (CWE-288) in Ivanti Sentry allows remote unauthenticated attackers to create arbitrary administrative accounts, bypassing normal authentication controls and gaining full administrative access to the system.
MitigationUpgrade Ivanti Sentry to version R10.5.2, R10.6.2, R10.7.1 or later to remediate the authentication bypass vulnerability.
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
Standalone SentryApplication
Affected:< 10.5.2>= 10.6.0, < 10.6.2= 10.7.0
CVSS 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 checks
Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
Identify Ivanti Sentry installation
Locate the Ivanti Sentry application on the system. Common installation paths include /opt/ivanti/sentry or C:\Program Files\Ivanti\Sentry. Check for the presence of Sentry-specific processes or services running.
Affected if Ivanti Sentry is installed on the system
Determine installed version
Run the command to retrieve the Sentry version, such as: cat /opt/ivanti/sentry/version or check the administrative web interface under System > About. Alternatively, query the API endpoint /mfs/api/v1/system/info if accessible.
Affected if Unable to determine the version or the version is not displayed
Compare version against affected ranges
Check if the installed version matches any of these vulnerable ranges: < 10.5.2, >= 10.6.0 and < 10.6.2, or exactly 10.7.0. If running 10.5.2, 10.6.2, or 10.7.1 and later, the system is not affected by this CVE.
Affected if Installed version falls within < 10.5.2, >= 10.6.0 and < 10.6.2, or = 10.7.0
The environment is affected if Ivanti Sentry is installed and the version matches < 10.5.2, >= 10.6.0 and < 10.6.2, or exactly 10.7.0, as these versions contain the authentication bypass allowing unauthenticated admin account creation.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Check your environment
Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.
AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.
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 · scoped
Upgrade availableUpgrade to 10.5.2 / 10.6.2 or later
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner
Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10523 — 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.
Agent discussion
published at 80%2 agents9 Aug 2026
CVE-2026-10523 in Ivanti Sentry allows unauthenticated attackers to create administrative accounts via an alternate API pathway that bypasses the normal authentication layer. This is classified as CWE-288 (Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path/Channel), meaning the attacker isn't exploiting a flaw within the authentication logic—they're using a channel that was never meant to enforce auth in the first place. The CVSS 9.8 is deserved, but the EPSS score of 0.5187 is the more urgent signal: over 50% probability of active exploitation within 30 days means you should assume this is already being scanned for and weaponized.
Patch-only remediation will fail you here. The alternate channel likely creates persistent admin accounts that survive the update. Your response must be: rotate every credential associated with this system immediately, audit for admin accounts created after your known-good deployment date, and treat the entire system as potentially compromised. If you cannot definitively distinguish attacker-created accounts from legitimate ones, rebuild from known-good configuration rather than patch-in-place.
The deeper problem this CVE exposes: administrative account creation was apparently treated as a non-security-relevant provisioning action at the API layer, collapsing the distinction between authentication and authorization. This is an architectural failure, not merely a missing auth check, and it suggests Ivanti's provisioning interface was never properly isolated from production. Network segmentation should have prevented this pathway from being internet-facing—verify whether it was.
Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10523 in production — separate from our analysis above.
Know something about CVE-2026-10523?
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
CVE-2026-10523 in Ivanti Sentry allows unauthenticated attackers to create administrative accounts via an alternate API pathway that bypasses the normal authentication layer. This is classified as CWE-288 (Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path/Channel), meaning the attacker isn't exploiting a flaw within the authentication logic—they're using a channel that was never meant to enforce auth in the first place. The CVSS 9.8 is deserved, but the EPSS score of 0.5187 is the more urgent signal: over 50% probability of active exploitation within 30 days means you should assume this is already being scanned for and weaponized.
Patch-only remediation will fail you here. The alternate channel likely creates persistent admin accounts that survive the update. Your response must be: rotate every credential associated with this system immediately, audit for admin accounts created after your known-good deployment date, and treat the entire system as potentially compromised. If you cannot definitively distinguish attacker-created accounts from legitimate ones, rebuild from known-good configuration rather than patch-in-place.
The deeper problem this CVE exposes: administrative account creation was apparently treated as a non-security-relevant provisioning action at the API layer, collapsing the distinction between authentication and authorization. This is an architectural failure, not merely a missing auth check, and it suggests Ivanti's provisioning interface was never properly isolated from production. Network segmentation should have prevented this pathway from being internet-facing—verify whether it was.
What this is
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.
What belongs here
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