CVE-2026-32131
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 · uneditedZITADEL is an open source identity management platform. Prior to 3.4.8 and 4.12.2, a vulnerability in Zitadel's Management API has been reported, which allowed authenticated users holding a valid low-privilege token (e.g., project.read, project.grant.read, or project.app.read) to retrieve management-plane information belonging to other organizations by specifying a different tenant’s project_id, grant_id, or app_id. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.4.8 and 4.12.2.
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 · high confidenceThis is an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) / Cross-Tenant Authorization Bypass vulnerability in ZITADEL's Management API. Authenticated users holding low-privilege tokens (project.read, project.grant.read, or project.app.read) could retrieve management-plane information belonging to other organizations by specifying a different tenant’s project_id, grant_id, or app_id - effectively bypassing tenant isolation controls.
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< 3.4.8>= 4.0.0, < 4.12.2CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 ZITADEL versionCheck the installed ZITADEL version by querying the system endpoint (e.g., /debug/version, /healthz, or consult the deployment manifest/container label). Compare the version against the vulnerable ranges: < 3.4.8 or >= 4.0.0 and < 4.12.2Affected if The installed version falls within < 3.4.8 or >= 4.0.0 to < 4.12.2
-
Verify Management API exposureDetermine if the ZITADEL Management API (typically served on port 8080/8081 or behind an ingress) is externally accessible or accepts requests from untrusted tenants. Inspect API gateway or ingress logs for management API endpointsAffected if The Management API is accessible to users from other organizations or untrusted tenants
-
Audit active API tokens with project permissionsReview issued API tokens in ZITADEL's user/ service account settings. Identify tokens granted project.read, project.grant.read, or project.app.read scopes, particularly those issued to cross-tenant or low-privilege service accountsAffected if Low-privilege tokens with project.read, project.grant.read, or project.app.read permissions exist and could potentially access cross-tenant resources
-
Test cross-tenant resource accessUsing a low-privilege token (project.read, project.grant.read, or project.app.read), attempt to query the Management API with a project_id, grant_id, or app_id belonging to a different organization. Compare the API response against expected authorization failuresAffected if The API returns data for resources belonging to a different organization when using a low-privilege token
A user is affected if ZITADEL version is in the vulnerable range AND the Management API is accessible to users who could exploit cross-tenant IDOR by providing another organization's project_id, grant_id, or app_id in API requests.
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 · scoped3.4.84.12.2
Upgrade ZITADEL to version 3.4.8 or 4.12.2 (or later) to patch the authorization bypass. After upgrading, verify that cross-tenant resource access is properly restricted.
Zitadel 3.4.8 (for 3.x users) or Zitadel 4.12.2 (for 4.x users)
- Identify current Zitadel version by checking the running instance or deployment configuration
- Determine the appropriate upgrade path: if currently on 3.x line, upgrade to 3.4.8; if on 4.x line, upgrade to 4.12.2
- Review the Zitadel upgrade documentation for your deployment method (Helm chart, binary, or container)
- Create a complete backup of the Zitadel database and configuration files before upgrading
- Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first to verify functionality
- Stop the Zitadel instance or apply the upgrade following your deployment method's standard procedure
- Restart Zitadel services after applying the upgrade
- Verify that the instance is running the fixed version (3.4.8 or 4.12.2)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-32131 — 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-2026-32131 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