CVE-2026-32099
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, when a user has `hide_profile` enabled, their bio, location, and website were still exposed through the user onebox preview. An authenticated user could request a onebox for a hidden user's profile URL and receive their hidden profile fields (bio, location, website) in the response. Versions 2026.3.0-latest.1, 2026.2.1, and 2026.1.2 contain a patch. 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 analysis · high confidenceIn Discourse versions prior to 2026.3.0-latest.1, 2026.2.1, and 2026.1.2, the hide_profile privacy setting was not properly enforced through the onebox preview feature. When an authenticated user requested a onebox for a profile URL belonging to a user with hide_profile enabled, the response incorrectly included the hidden fields (bio, location, website), allowing unauthorized disclosure of profile information that users intended to keep private.
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>= 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 Discourse versionAccess the admin dashboard and navigate to /admin-about or check the VERSION file in the Discourse installation directory. The version format is like 2026.x.xAffected if The installed version falls within >= 2026.1.0 and < 2026.1.2, OR >= 2026.2.0 and < 2026.2.1, OR equals exactly 2026.3.0
-
Verify hide_profile setting existsNavigate to admin dashboard, look for user privacy settings or profile visibility options. The setting is typically found under Users -> Guardian or in the user profile preferences where users can enable hide_profile to hide bio, location, and website from other usersAffected if The hide_profile privacy setting exists and can be enabled by users to protect their profile information
-
Confirm onebox feature is enabledOnebox is a standard Discourse feature for embedding external content. Check if the onebox plugin or feature is active by posting a link to a Discourse profile in a post and seeing if it renders as a previewAffected if Onebox feature is enabled and functional in the Discourse instance
-
Test profile onebox response for hidden fieldsCreate two test users: User A with hide_profile enabled (bio, location, website filled but marked private), and User B as an authenticated user. Have User B post a onebox link to User A's profile URL. Inspect the API response or rendered HTML to see if bio, location, and website fields are exposed to User B when they should be hiddenAffected if The onebox response returns bio, location, or website fields for a user who has hide_profile enabled, exposing private profile information to an authenticated user who should not see it
You are affected if your Discourse version is 2026.1.0 through 2026.1.1, 2026.2.0, or exactly 2026.3.0, AND users in your community have enabled the hide_profile privacy setting, AND the onebox feature is active and exposing hidden profile fields in its responses.
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 · scoped2026.1.22026.2.1
Upgrade Discourse to version 2026.3.0-latest.1, 2026.2.1, or 2026.1.2. No workarounds are available.
2026.3.0-latest.1 (or latest stable release >= 2026.3.0)
- 1. Back up your Discourse database and site assets before proceeding with any upgrade
- 2. For Docker-based installations: run `cd /var/discourse && git pull` to fetch the latest templates and Docker image
- 3. Rebuild the Discourse container: `./launcher rebuild app`
- 4. For non-Docker installations: run `cd /path/to/discourse && git pull` followed by `bundle install` and `rake db:migrate`
- 5. Verify the upgrade completed successfully by checking the Discourse admin panel version number
- 6. Test that the onebox functionality no longer exposes hidden profile fields for users with hide_profile enabled
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-32099 — 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-2026-32099 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