CVE-2026-27454
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 · uneditedDiscourse is an open-source discussion platform. Prior to versions 2026.3.0-latest.1, 2026.2.1, and 2026.1.2, requesting /posts/:id.json?version=X bypassed authorization checks on post revisions. The display_post method called post.revert_to directly without verifying whether the revision was hidden or if the user had permission to view edit history. This meant hidden revisions (intentionally concealed by staff) could be read by any user by simply enumerating version numbers. Starting in versions 2026.3.0-latest.1, 2026.2.1, and 2026.1.2, Discourse looks up the PostRevision and call guardian.ensure_can_see! before reverting, consistent with how the /posts/:id/revisions/:revision endpoint already authorizes access. No known workarounds are available.
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 analysisThe application checks who you are but not whether you're allowed to perform a given action, so any authenticated user can reach things meant for others. This is the classic “change the ID in the URL” bug. The fix is an authorization check on every request, evaluated against the acting user's permissions.
General guidance for the missing authorization class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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>= 2026.1.0, < 2026.1.2>= 2026.2.0, < 2026.2.1= 2026.3.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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 · scoped2026.1.22026.2.1
2026.1.2+ (2026.1.x), 2026.2.1+ (2026.2.x), or 2026.3.0-latest.1+ (2026.3.x)
- Identify your current Discourse version using the admin dashboard or discourse --version
- Determine which version branch you're on (2026.1.x, 2026.2.x, or 2026.3.0)
- Back up your database and files before upgrading
- For 2026.1.x branch: upgrade to version 2026.1.2 or later
- For 2026.2.x branch: upgrade to version 2026.2.1 or later
- For 2026.3.0: upgrade to version 2026.3.0-latest.1 or later
- Run the Discourse upgrade command (./launcher rebuild app)
- Verify the upgrade completed successfully and the version is correct
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-27454 — 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-2026-27454 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