CVE-2026-44448
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 · uneditedERPNext is a free and open source Enterprise Resource Planning tool. Prior to 15.102.0 and 16.11.0, certain endpoints failed to enforce proper authorization checks, allowing users to modify data beyond their permitted role. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.102.0 and 16.11.0.
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 confidenceERPNext versions prior to 15.102.0 and 16.11.0 contain broken access control vulnerabilities where certain API endpoints fail to enforce proper authorization checks. Authenticated users can modify data beyond the scope of their permitted roles, representing an IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) or vertical privilege escalation issue.
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< 15.102.0>= 16.0.0, < 16.11.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Check installed ERPNext versionRun 'bench version' in the ERPNext/Frappe bench directory, or access the built-in Version Checker at /app/ERPNext in the Frappe Desk. Alternatively, check the 'installed_apps' table in the database for the exact version string.Affected if Version is below 15.102.0 OR version is 16.0.0 through 16.10.x (16.x where x < 11)
-
Verify Frappe framework versionRun 'bench version' to confirm the Frappe framework version as ERPNext runs on top of it. The authorization vulnerability may also depend on specific Frappe versions.Affected if Frappe version is outdated and ERPNext version falls in affected range above
-
Confirm authentication is enabledVerify that the system has user authentication enabled. Check that the 'allow_login' setting is true for at least some non-guest users in the 'User' doctype.Affected if Authentication is required for this vulnerability - unauthenticated users cannot exploit it
-
Review role permissions configurationNavigate to Role Permission Manager (/app/role-permission-manager) and review which roles have Document Type access. Pay attention to whether standard user roles have been granted elevated permissions.Affected if Standard/authenticated users exist with permissions that could be exploited for privilege escalation
-
Audit API access logsReview the Request Log (bench execute frappe.utils.logger.set_log) or web server access logs for API calls to endpoints under /api/, particularly POST/PUT methods. Check if lower-privilege users are making changes outside expected scope.Affected if API calls from lower-privilege users modify data they should not have access to according to role permissions
You are affected if your ERPNext version is below 15.102.0 or falls between 16.0.0 and 16.10.x inclusive, AND you have authenticated users with roles that could be exploited for unauthorized data modification.
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 · scoped15.102.016.11.0
Upgrade ERPNext to version 15.102.0 or 16.11.0 or later to patch the missing authorization enforcement on affected endpoints.
15.102.0 for v15.x users; 16.11.0 for v16.x users
- Backup your ERPNext database and all relevant data before upgrading
- Identify your current ERPNext version using the system diagnostics or version check
- If running version 15.x (< 15.102.0), plan upgrade to version 15.102.0
- If running version 16.x (>= 16.0.0 and < 16.11.0), plan upgrade to version 16.11.0
- Review the release notes for the target version to understand changes and any required migration steps
- Execute the upgrade following ERPNext official upgrade procedures (bench update or migration scripts)
- After upgrade, verify that authorization controls are properly enforced on sensitive endpoints
- Test that users can only access data permitted by their assigned roles
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,992.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44448 — 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-2026-44448 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