CVE-2026-44847
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 · uneditedMaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. Prior to 2.9.0, MaxKB's webhook trigger endpoint (/api/trigger/v1/webhook/{trigger_id}) is accessible without authentication. The WebhookAuth class unconditionally returns (None, {}), which Django REST Framework interprets as successful authentication. Combined with optional per-trigger token verification and no backend enforcement of token requirements, any unauthenticated attacker who knows a valid trigger ID can invoke webhook triggers to execute their bound tasks. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.9.0.
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 confidenceMaxKB versions prior to 2.9.0 have an unauthenticated webhook trigger endpoint at /api/trigger/v1/webhook/{trigger_id}. The WebhookAuth class returns (None, {}) which Django REST Framework treats as successful authentication, allowing any attacker with a valid trigger ID to execute bound webhook tasks without any credentials.
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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify MaxKB versionCheck the installed MaxKB version by reviewing the application's version file, Docker image tag, or running a version query command against the APIAffected if version is lower than 2.9.0 (the fixed release)
-
Confirm webhook endpoint is accessibleVerify that the /api/trigger/v1/webhook/{trigger_id} endpoint is exposed and reachable from the networkAffected if the webhook trigger endpoint is externally or internally accessible without authentication required
-
Check if trigger IDs existReview the MaxKB configuration or database for any configured webhook trigger IDs that could be exploitedAffected if any valid trigger_id values are present in the system that could be used to invoke the vulnerable endpoint
-
Test authentication behaviorSend a request to the webhook endpoint with a known trigger_id but without any authentication headers or tokensAffected if the request succeeds and executes the bound task without returning an authentication error
A user is affected if running MaxKB version lower than 2.9.0 with the webhook trigger endpoint accessible and at least one valid trigger ID configured in the system
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 · scopedUpgrade to MaxKB 2.9.0 or later which implements proper authentication enforcement in the WebhookAuth class. If immediate upgrade is not possible, disable webhook triggers or implement external authentication controls.
2.9.0
- Upgrade MaxKB to version 2.9.0 or later to resolve the authentication bypass in the webhook trigger endpoint (/api/trigger/v1/webhook/{trigger_id})
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44847 — 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-2026-44847 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