CVE-2026-22194
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 · uneditedGestSup versions up to and including 3.2.60 contain a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability where the application does not verify the authenticity of client requests. An attacker can induce a logged-in user to submit crafted requests that perform actions with the victim's privileges. This can be exploited to create privileged accounts by targeting the administrative user creation endpoint.
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 confidenceGestSup versions up to 3.2.60 are vulnerable to CSRF due to the application's failure to validate the authenticity of client requests. Attackers can trick authenticated administrative users into unknowingly submitting crafted requests that create privileged accounts via the admin user creation endpoint.
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<= 3.2.56CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 GestSup versionAccess the admin dashboard and navigate to Administration > System > About, or check the version displayed in the login page footer, or inspect the version.php file in the installation root if accessible via file systemAffected if The installed version is 3.2.56 or below
-
Verify version is in affected rangeCompare your identified version against the affected range: any version <= 3.2.56Affected if The version is 3.2.56 or lower
-
Inspect admin user creation form for CSRF tokenLog in as administrator, navigate to the user creation or admin management section, view the page source (right-click > View Page Source) or inspect the form HTML using browser developer tools (F12 > Elements tab)Affected if The form lacks a hidden CSRF token input field or the page contains no anti-CSRF token mechanism
-
Verify server-side CSRF validation existsAttempt a legitimate admin user creation with a modified or missing CSRF token value in the request, or examine the server-side code handling the admin user creation endpoint if code access is availableAffected if The request succeeds or is processed without validating a CSRF token, indicating the server does not enforce token checks
You are affected if GestSup version is 3.2.56 or lower AND the admin user creation form lacks or does not validate anti-CSRF tokens on the server side.
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 anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing forms and validate these tokens on the server side before processing requests, particularly administrative functions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22194 — 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-2026-22194 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