CVE-2026-13223
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 · uneditedOur payment integration with Computop-based payment methods did not properly validate payment status responses. An attacker could use a successful payment status response from one payment and supply it to the system for a different payment, gaining access to multiple valid tickets with only one payment.
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 · moderate confidenceThe Computop payment integration lacks proper validation linking payment status responses to specific transactions. An attacker can capture a successful payment response from one order and replay it to validate other payments, obtaining multiple valid tickets without completing actual payments.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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.
-
Verify Computop payment module is in useCheck application configuration files, payment module listings, or code imports for 'Computop' or 'ComputopPayment' referencesAffected if Computop payment integration is implemented in the system
-
Check for transaction ID validation in payment response handlingReview payment callback/notification handler code to verify that incoming payment status responses validate a transaction ID, order ID, or similar unique identifier against the original requestAffected if Payment responses are accepted without binding to a specific transaction or order ID
-
Inspect payment response signature validationExamine the payment verification logic to determine if response data includes cryptographic signatures that are validated before accepting payment statusAffected if Payment status responses are accepted without verifying cryptographic signatures or unique tokens
-
Test for response replay capabilityCapture a valid payment success response and attempt to submit it with modified order details to see if the payment is still acceptedAffected if The same payment response can be reused across different orders without rejection
-
Review session binding of payment tokensCheck whether payment tokens or session identifiers are uniquely bound to the specific order at initialization and validated throughout the payment lifecycleAffected if Payment tokens or session data are not tied to specific orders or can be reused freely
The environment is affected if Computop payment integration is used and payment status responses are not cryptographically bound to specific transactions through validated transaction IDs, order IDs, or signed responses.
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.
From vendor dataImplement cryptographic or transactional validation to ensure payment status responses are uniquely bound to the specific payment request, such as validating transaction IDs, order IDs, and using signed responses.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-13223 — 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-2026-13223 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