dbcve.org
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Weakness · CWE-352

CVE-2026-40549

MEDIUM · 5.1 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-06-01
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
58/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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
SOPlanning is vulnerable to Cross‑Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in groupe_save create, modify and delete endpoints. An attacker can craft a malicious website that, when visited by an authenticated user, automatically sends a forged GET or POST request to the application. This issue affects SOPlanning version 1.55 and below.

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

SOPlanning versions 1.55 and below lack anti-CSRF protection on the groupe_save create, modify, and delete endpoints. An attacker can trick an authenticated user into visiting a malicious page that silently submits forged GET or POST requests to perform unauthorized group operations.

MitigationImplement synchronizer token pattern (anti-CSRF tokens) on all state-changing forms and validate Origin/Referer headers server-side.

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
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
A
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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. Check SOPlanning installed version
    Locate the version identifier in the application (typically in an about page, footer, or version file included with the installation). Compare it to the affected range: version 1.55 and below.
    Affected if The installed version is 1.55 or lower.
  2. Identify groupe_save endpoints
    Locate the server-side scripts or API handlers that handle group management operations. Look for paths or functions named groupe_save, groupe_create, groupe_modify, or groupe_delete.
    Affected if These group management endpoints exist in the installation.
  3. Verify CSRF token presence on group forms
    Access the group creation and modification forms in the web interface. View the page source or inspect form submissions to check for a hidden CSRF token field (commonly named token, csrf_token, or similar).
    Affected if No anti-CSRF token field is present in group management forms.
  4. Test endpoint for CSRF protection
    Send a forged request to the groupe_save endpoint (without a valid token) from an external origin (e.g., using curl from a different host). Check if the server rejects the request or processes it without validating origin/token.
    Affected if The server accepts and processes the request without rejecting it based on missing or invalid CSRF tokens.
  5. Check SameSite cookie attributes
    Inspect the session cookie set by SOPlanning. Look for the Set-Cookie header or browser developer tools to verify if the SameSite attribute is configured.
    Affected if Session cookies lack SameSite attribute or are set to None without secure flag.

A user is affected if SOPlanning version is 1.55 or below AND the groupe_save endpoints process requests without validating CSRF tokens or origin headers.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement synchronizer token pattern (anti-CSRF tokens) on all state-changing forms and validate Origin/Referer headers server-side.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

SOPlanning version 1.56 or later

  1. 1. Navigate to the official SOPlanning website (www.soplanning.org) or contact the vendor directly to obtain version 1.56 or later
  2. 2. Download the latest stable release of SOPlanning (version 1.56 or higher)
  3. 3. Before upgrading, perform a complete backup of the existing SOPlanning installation including the database and configuration files
  4. 4. Follow the vendor's documented upgrade procedure to install the new version
  5. 5. After upgrading, verify that the CSRF protection is properly implemented by testing the groupe_save endpoints (create, modify, delete) with a CSRF token
  6. 6. Ensure all authenticated users log out and log back in to obtain new session tokens
Caveat Review release notes for any breaking changes between version 1.55 and 1.56 before upgrading, particularly regarding database schema changes or deprecated features

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-40549 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-40549 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