CVE-2026-27351
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 · uneditedMissing Authorization vulnerability in Sekander Badsha Crew HRM allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Crew HRM: from n/a through 1.2.2.
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 confidenceMissing authorization vulnerability in Sekander Badsha Crew HRM allows attackers to access resources or functions beyond their privilege level due to incorrectly configured access control security levels. This is likely an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) or broken access control issue where the application fails to validate user permissions before performing actions or accessing data.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Crew HRM installationLocate the Crew HRM installation directory and check for version file (often in config, about, or root directory as version.json, package.json, or similar)Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or is any version of Crew HRM (no specific version range provided)
-
Locate access control configurationSearch for configuration files related to user roles, permissions, or access control (commonly in config/permissions.php, config/roles.php, app/Http/Middleware, or similar paths)Affected if No access control configuration file exists or the file is missing role-based permission definitions
-
Verify authorization middleware is enabledInspect the application's middleware stack and route definitions to confirm authorization checks are registered and applied to sensitive routes (admin functions, user data endpoints)Affected if Authorization middleware is absent from route definitions or not applied to administrative endpoints
-
Inspect role permission enforcementReview the source code for functions that perform authorization checks (look for 'can', 'authorize', 'hasPermission', 'isAdmin' patterns) before executing sensitive operationsAffected if Sensitive functions lack explicit authorization checks or rely only on client-side validation
-
Test access control boundariesAs a low-privileged or unauthenticated user, attempt to access administrative functions, user records, or sensitive API endpoints to verify proper access denialAffected if Lower-privileged or unauthenticated requests successfully access resources or actions outside their intended scope
A user is affected if Crew HRM is installed and lacks proper access control enforcement, allowing privilege escalation or unauthorized access to administrative functions.
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 proper authorization checks and role-based access control (RBAC) across all endpoints and functions. Audit existing access control configurations to ensure users can only access resources and actions permitted by their security level.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-27351 — 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-2026-27351 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