CVE-2026-44260
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 · uneditedefw4.X is an Enterprise Framework for Web. Prior to 4.08.010, the readonly flag set on the <efw:elFinder> JSP tag is intended to prevent file modifications. When protected=true, elfinder_checkRisk enforces that the client sends readonly=true (matching the session value), but no event handler checks the readonly value before performing write operations. The flag only controls client-side UI elements (disabling buttons) and response metadata (write: 0, locked: 1). An attacker who sends requests directly (bypassing the UI) can perform all file operations despite readonly=true. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.08.010.
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 efw4.X prior to 4.08.010, the readonly flag on the <efw:elFinder> JSP tag is only enforced client-side (disabling UI buttons) and in response metadata, but lacks server-side validation before write operations. An attacker can bypass the UI and send direct API requests to perform file modifications even when readonly=true is set, due to missing server-side enforcement of the readonly flag.
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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 efw4.X installation and versionLocate the efw4.X installation directory and check version metadata (e.g., version.properties, MANIFEST.MF, or about page). Common paths: /opt/efw/, /usr/share/efw4/, or the application's WEB-INF/lib directory.Affected if The installed version is below 4.08.010 (vulnerable to CVE-2026-44260)
-
Locate elFinder JSP tag usage with readonly attributeSearch JSP files for 'elfinder' tag usage with readonly='true' or readonly='1' attribute. Use grep: grep -r 'readonly.*=.*true' --include='*.jsp' in the webapp directory.Affected if JSP pages use <elfinder:connector readonly='true'> or similar tag configuration
-
Inspect server-side event handler codeExamine the elFinder backend event handler (typically in Java source under src/ or in a JAR file). Look for file operation methods (upload, mkdir, rm, rename, edit). Verify whether these methods check a 'readonly' or 'readonlyFlag' parameter before executing write operations.Affected if Write operation handlers do NOT validate the readonly flag server-side before performing file modifications
-
Test write API endpoints with readonly parameterSend a direct HTTP request to elFinder write API endpoints (e.g., /elfinder/connector) with a request that includes 'readonly=1' or 'readonly=true' along with a file write command (upload, mkdir, rename). Observe if the operation succeeds despite the readonly flag.Affected if The API accepts and executes write operations even when readonly parameter is set to true/1
-
Review event handling servlet or filterLocate the servlet or filter class that handles elFinder commands. Check if it contains logic to inspect the 'readonly' request parameter and reject write commands when readonly mode is enabled.Affected if No server-side authorization check exists for the readonly flag in the command processing layer
You are affected if you run efw4.X version below 4.08.010 AND use elFinder JSP tag with readonly=true without having added manual server-side validation for write operations.
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.
From vendor dataUpgrade to efw4.X version 4.08.010 or later which implements server-side enforcement of the readonly flag before write operations are permitted.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44260 — 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-2026-44260 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