CVE-2026-28514
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 · uneditedRocket.Chat is an open-source, secure, fully customizable communications platform. Prior to versions 7.8.6, 7.9.8, 7.10.7, 7.11.4, 7.12.4, 7.13.3, and 8.0.0, a critical authentication bypass vulnerability exists in Rocket.Chat's account service used in the ddp-streamer micro service that allows an attacker to log in to the service as any user with a password set, using any arbitrary password. The vulnerability stems from a missing await keyword when calling an asynchronous password validation function, causing a Promise object (which is always truthy) to be evaluated instead of the actual boolean validation result. This may lead to account takeover of any user whose username is known or guessable. This issue has been patched in versions 7.8.6, 7.9.8, 7.10.7, 7.11.4, 7.12.4, 7.13.3, and 8.0.0.
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 confidenceRocket.Chat versions prior to 7.8.6/7.9.8/7.10.7/7.11.4/7.12.4/7.13.3/8.0.0 contain an authentication bypass in the ddp-streamer microservice. A missing await keyword causes an async password validation function to return a Promise object (always truthy) instead of the actual boolean validation result, allowing account takeover with any password for known usernames.
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< 7.8.6>= 7.9.0, < 7.9.8>= 7.10.0, < 7.10.7>= 7.11.0, < 7.11.4>= 7.12.0, < 7.12.4>= 7.13.0, < 7.13.3= 8.0.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 Rocket.Chat installation and versionCheck the running Rocket.Chat version via the administration UI (Admin > Info > Version) or by querying the API endpoint /api/infoAffected if The installed version matches any of the affected ranges: < 7.8.6, 7.9.0-7.9.7, 7.10.0-7.10.6, 7.11.0-7.11.3, 7.12.0-7.12.3, 7.13.0-7.13.2, or exactly 8.0.0
-
Confirm ddp-streamer microservice is in useVerify if the ddp-streamer microservice is deployed or enabled in your Rocket.Chat environment. Check for ddp-streamer processes, containers, or configuration entries indicating its presenceAffected if The ddp-streamer microservice is running and handling authentication requests
-
Locate the account service password validation codeIn the ddp-streamer microservice source code, locate the account service module that handles password validation. Search for the async function that validates user passwordsAffected if The code is missing an await keyword when calling the async password validation function, causing it to return a Promise object instead of a boolean
Your environment is affected if Rocket.Chat is running a version within the affected ranges AND the ddp-streamer microservice with the vulnerable password validation code is enabled.
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.
dbcve · scoped7.8.67.9.87.10.7
Upgrade Rocket.Chat to version 7.8.6, 7.9.8, 7.10.7, 7.11.4, 7.12.4, 7.13.3, or 8.0.0 or later. If ddp-streamer is exposed externally, restrict network access while patching.
Rocket.Chat 8.0.0 (or latest stable 7.x such as 7.13.3)
- 1. Identify the current Rocket.Chat version by checking the deployment or running `rocketchat-versions` command
- 2. Select a fixed version from: 7.8.6, 7.9.8, 7.10.7, 7.11.4, 7.12.4, 7.13.3, or 8.0.0 (prefer latest stable release for long-term support)
- 3. Back up the Rocket.Chat database and configuration files before upgrading
- 4. Follow the official Rocket.Chat upgrade documentation for your deployment method (docker, snap, or manual installation)
- 5. After upgrade, restart the Rocket.Chat service
- 6. Verify the fix by confirming the version number matches the patched release and testing that authentication now correctly rejects invalid passwords
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-28514 — 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-2026-28514 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