dbcve.org
Improper AuthenticationWeakness · CWE-287

CVE-2026-15192

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
74/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click 6 weeks old

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
A vulnerability has been found in mettle sendportal up to 3.0.1. This issue affects the function sendgrid/postmark/postal/mailjet of the component APIv1 Webhooks. The manipulation leads to missing authentication. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

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 confidence

Missing authentication in SendPortal's APIv1 Webhooks component allows remote attackers to access sendgrid, postmark, postal, and mailjet webhook endpoints without proper verification. The vulnerability affects the webhook handling functions for these email providers, potentially enabling unauthorized manipulation of email-related data or actions.

MitigationImplement robust authentication and verification for all webhook endpoints, including signature validation, API key verification, or token-based authentication consistent with each provider's recommended webhook security practices.

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
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

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.

  1. Identify SendPortal installation
    Locate SendPortal installation directory or check running services. Common paths include /var/www/sendportal or check via composer if installed as a PHP package. Verify the application is SendPortal by checking for sendportal or SendPortal branding in the codebase.
    Affected if SendPortal is installed and running.
  2. Determine SendPortal version
    Check the installed version by examining composer.json, a version file, or the admin dashboard if accessible. Run: composer show sendportal/core 2>/dev/null or grep -r 'version' vendor/sendportal/*/composer.json 2>/dev/null
    Affected if Version is unknown or within any vulnerable release range for this APIv1 webhook issue.
  3. Verify APIv1 is enabled
    Check routing configuration files (typically routes/api.php or routes/web.php) for webhook routes under /api/v1/webhooks or similar paths. Inspect the application for api/v1 prefixes in routes.
    Affected if APIv1 endpoints are active and accessible.
  4. Inspect webhook endpoint configuration
    Examine the webhook controller files handling sendgrid, postmark, postal, and mailjet routes. Look for middleware/authentication applied to these routes in the route definitions.
    Affected if Webhook routes exist without proper authentication middleware (such as auth:api, signature validation, or provider-specific verification).
  5. Test webhook endpoint accessibility
    Use curl or similar tool to send requests to the webhook endpoints (e.g., POST to /api/v1/webhooks/sendgrid, /api/v1/webhooks/postmark) without credentials or signatures. Check if the endpoint responds without rejecting the request.
    Affected if The endpoints accept requests without requiring authentication, signature verification, or valid API keys.

A user is affected if SendPortal with APIv1 is running and the webhook endpoints for sendgrid, postmark, postal, or mailjet are accessible without authentication or signature verification.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement robust authentication and verification for all webhook endpoints, including signature validation, API key verification, or token-based authentication consistent with each provider's recommended webhook security practices.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,440
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,904.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15192 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-15192 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

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