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

CVE-2026-45430

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
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
The Salesforce module before 1.x-1.0.1 for Backdrop CMS does not properly use a random state parameter to protect the authorization flow against CSRF attacks.

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 · moderate confidence

The Salesforce module for Backdrop CMS fails to implement a proper random state parameter in its OAuth 2.0 authorization flow, allowing cross-site request forgery attacks where an attacker can intercept or manipulate the OAuth authorization process by tricking users into completing an authorization request initiated by the attacker.

MitigationUpdate the Salesforce module to version 1.x-1.0.1 or later which properly generates and validates a cryptographically random state parameter during the OAuth authorization flow.

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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L

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. Identify if Salesforce module is installed
    Check for the Salesforce module directory in the Backdrop CMS installation (typically under /modules/salesforce or via Drush/Backdrop admin interface)
    Affected if The Salesforce module directory exists and the module is enabled in Backdrop CMS
  2. Determine Salesforce module version
    Check the module's .info file or composer.json for the version number (usually in the module directory or via Backdrop admin interface at admin/modules)
    Affected if The installed version is below 1.0.1 (e.g., 1.0.0 or earlier)
  3. Verify OAuth connection is configured
    Check if Salesforce OAuth is configured in the module settings (typically at admin/config/services/salesforce or via the module's connection settings)
    Affected if OAuth authorization to Salesforce is configured and enabled for user authentication
  4. Inspect state parameter implementation
    Review the OAuth authorization code in the Salesforce module for proper state parameter generation and validation (look for 'state' parameter in authorization URL generation and validation logic)
    Affected if The code lacks cryptographically random state parameter generation or validation during OAuth flow

A Backdrop CMS installation is affected if the Salesforce module version is 1.0.0 or earlier and OAuth authorization to Salesforce is configured and in use.

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

Update the Salesforce module to version 1.x-1.0.1 or later which properly generates and validates a cryptographically random state parameter during the OAuth authorization flow.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

Salesforce module version 1.x-1.0.1 for Backdrop CMS

  1. Backup your Backdrop CMS site database and files
  2. Navigate to the Backdrop CMS module management interface or use Drush to update the Salesforce module
  3. Update the Salesforce module to version 1.x-1.0.1 or later
  4. Clear all Backdrop CMS caches (via admin interface or Drush command: `drush cc all`)
  5. Verify the update was successful by checking the module version in the modules list
  6. Test the Salesforce OAuth/authorization flow to confirm the state parameter is now properly implemented

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-2026-45430 — 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-2026-45430 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