CVE-2026-45549
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 · uneditedRoxy-WI is a web interface for managing Haproxy, Nginx, Apache and Keepalived servers. In versions 8.2.6.4 and prior, agent_action (app/routes/smon/agent_routes.py:166-179) has decorators @bp.post('/agent/action/<action>') and @jwt_required() only — no role check, no group ownership check on the server_ip form field. Any authenticated user, including role 4 (guest), can start, stop, or restart the roxy-wi-smon-agent systemd unit on any server they can name. Roxy-WI executes the systemd action over its own SSH credentials (passwordless sudo), so the action runs as root on the target. At time of publication, there are no publicly available patches.
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 confidenceRoxy-WI versions 8.2.6.4 and prior have an IDOR/authorization bypass vulnerability in the agent_action endpoint (app/routes/smon/agent_routes.py:166-179). The endpoint only requires JWT authentication but lacks role verification and group ownership validation for the server_ip parameter. Any authenticated user, including guest (role 4), can execute systemd commands (start/stop/restart) on the roxy-wi-smon-agent service on any server, running as root via passwordless sudo over SSH.
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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:H
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 Roxy-WI installation and versionLocate the Roxy-WI installation directory and check the version file or about page. Compare the installed version number to 8.2.6.4 (any version at or below 8.2.6.4 is affected).Affected if Installed version is 8.2.6.4 or lower
-
Verify agent_action endpoint existsCheck the application's web route configuration or source code for the /agent_action endpoint definition. Confirm the endpoint is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS.Affected if The agent_action endpoint is present and routable in the application
-
Confirm JWT authentication is enabledReview the application's authentication configuration to verify JWT-based authentication is active for API endpoints.Affected if JWT authentication is the configured auth mechanism for the agent_action endpoint
-
Check guest role permissions configurationExamine the user role configuration file or database to verify role ID 4 (guest) exists and has permissions assigned. Look for any role-based access control settings on the agent_action endpoint.Affected if Role-based access control is not enforced on the agent_action endpoint or guest role (4) is not properly restricted
-
Verify server group ownership validation is absentInspect the agent_action endpoint code or configuration to determine if server group ownership is validated before allowing actions on servers.Affected if No server group ownership validation exists for the agent_action requests
-
Confirm roxy-wi-smon-agent service existsCheck if the roxy-wi-smon-agent systemd service is installed on managed servers by running 'systemctl list-unit-files | grep roxy-wi-smon' or checking the service file presence.Affected if The roxy-wi-smon-agent service exists on any managed systems
You are affected if Roxy-WI version 8.2.6.4 or lower is installed, the agent_action endpoint is accessible, JWT auth is enabled, and no RBAC or server group ownership validation is implemented on that endpoint.
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 · scopedImplement role-based access control (RBAC) and server group ownership validation on the agent_action endpoint to ensure users can only manage agents on servers they are authorized to access. Restrict guest users (role 4) from executing high-privilege system operations.
- Monitor the Roxy-WI GitHub repository (github.com/hexaeltop/Roxy-WI) and security advisories for the release of a security patch addressing CVE-2026-45549
- Until a patch is available, restrict access to the Roxy-WI application to only trusted users via network-level access controls
- Consider implementing additional authentication layers (e.g., VPN, IP allowlisting) to limit who can reach the web interface
- Review user accounts and ensure no untrusted users have any Roxy-WI credentials
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-45549 — 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-2026-45549 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