Authorization Bypass (IDOR)Weakness · CWE-639

CVE-2026-40043

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-13
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
71/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
Pachno 1.0.6 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the runSwitchUser() action that allows authenticated low-privilege users to escalate privileges by manipulating the original_username cookie. Attackers can set the client-controlled original_username cookie to any value and request a switch to user ID 1 to obtain session tokens or password hashes belonging to administrator accounts.

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 confidence

Pachno 1.0.6 has an authentication bypass in the runSwitchUser() action where authenticated low-privilege users can manipulate the client-controlled original_username cookie to switch to user ID 1, gaining access to administrator session tokens or password hashes.

MitigationFix the runSwitchUser() function to enforce proper server-side authorization checks and remove trust in cookie values for user identity; validate that the requesting user has permission to switch to the target account.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm Pachno installation
    Identify if Pachno is installed in your environment by checking for Pachno-related files, directories, or services
    Affected if Pachno is not installed - not affected
  2. Check Pachno version
    Locate and read the version file or configuration that stores the Pachno version number (commonly in version.php, a config file, or composer.json in the installation root)
    Affected if Version is 1.0.6 - potentially affected; versions different from 1.0.6 are not affected by this specific CVE
  3. Verify runSwitchUser endpoint accessibility
    Check if the runSwitchUser action is accessible by reviewing the application routing or attempting to access the relevant URL endpoint (typically index.php with action=runSwitchUser or similar routing pattern)
    Affected if The endpoint is accessible to authenticated users without admin privileges - vulnerable configuration present
  4. Inspect cookie handling for original_username
    Review the runSwitchUser() function code to determine if the original_username cookie value is used directly without server-side validation or authorization checks
    Affected if The cookie value is trusted and used directly for user switching - vulnerable
  5. Test for privilege escalation via cookie manipulation
    As a low-privilege authenticated user, attempt to modify the original_username cookie value to target user ID 1 and trigger the switch action
    Affected if Successful switch to admin-level account is possible - confirmed affected

If running Pachno version 1.0.6 and the runSwitchUser action uses the original_username cookie without proper server-side authorization, the environment is affected by this authentication bypass.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Fix the runSwitchUser() function to enforce proper server-side authorization checks and remove trust in cookie values for user identity; validate that the requesting user has permission to switch to the target account.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,640
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-40043 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-40043 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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