CVE-2026-34587
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 · uneditedKirby is an open-source content management system. Prior to versions 4.9.0 and 5.4.0, Kirby's user permissions control which user role is allowed to perform specific actions to content models in the CMS. These permissions are defined for each role in the user blueprint (`site/blueprints/users/...`). It is also possible to customize the permissions for each target model in the model blueprints (such as in `site/blueprints/pages/...`) using the `options` feature. The permissions and options together control the authorization of user actions. For pages, Kirby provides the `pages.create` and `pages.changeStatus` permissions (among others). In affected releases, Kirby checked these permissions independently and only for the respective action. However the `changeStatus` permission didn't take effect on page creation. New pages are created as drafts by default and need to be published by changing the page status of an existing page draft. This is ensured when the page is created via the Kirby Panel. However the REST API allows to override the `isDraft` flag when creating a new page. This allowed authenticated attackers with the `pages.create` permission to immediately create published pages, bypassing the normal editorial workflow. The problem has been patched in Kirby 4.9.0 and Kirby 5.4.0. Kirby has updated the `Options` logic to no longer double-resolve queries in option values coming from `OptionsQuery` or `OptionsApi` sources. Kirby now only resolves queries that are directly configured in the blueprints.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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< 4.9.0>= 5.0.0, < 5.4.0CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped4.9.05.4.0
Kirby 4.9.0 (for 4.x branch) or Kirby 5.4.0 (for 5.x branch)
- 1. Back up the current Kirby installation and database
- 2. Determine the current Kirby major version (4.x or 5.x)
- 3. If using Kirby 4.x: upgrade to version 4.9.0
- 4. If using Kirby 5.x: upgrade to version 5.4.0
- 5. Test the upgrade in a staging environment to verify the patch works and no regressions occur
- 6. Deploy the upgraded version to production
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-2026-34587 — 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-2026-34587 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