dbcve.org
Improper AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-285

CVE-2026-46620

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-26
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
72/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
e107 is a content management system (CMS). Prior to 2.3.5, e107 CMS does not properly enforce CSRF token validation on comment moderation actions. The problem comes down to how session_handler::check() handles CSRF tokens. Instead of requiring a token on every state-changing request, it only validates the token if one happens to be present. If there is no token at all, the check is skipped entirely. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.3.5.

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 confidence

e107 CMS prior to 2.3.5 has a CSRF protection bypass in session_handler::check() where token validation only occurs if a token is present in the request. When no token is provided, the validation is skipped entirely, allowing attackers to forge comment moderation actions without a valid CSRF token.

MitigationUpgrade e107 CMS to version 2.3.5 or later, which enforces mandatory CSRF token validation for all state-changing operations.

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
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed e107 CMS version
    Locate the version file or constant in your e107 installation. Check files like e107_config.php, or look for a version.php file in the includes or core directories. Alternatively, access the admin dashboard and look for version information typically displayed in the footer or in Admin > Dashboard > System Info.
    Affected if The installed version is below 2.3.5 (e.g., 2.3.4, 2.3.3, earlier versions)
  2. Locate session_handler class file
    Search the e107 installation for the session_handler class file. This is typically found in e107_handlers or includes directories. Look for a file containing 'session_handler' class definition.
    Affected if The file exists and contains a check() method that conditionally validates CSRF tokens
  3. Inspect session_handler::check() for conditional validation logic
    Open the session_handler class file and examine the check() method. Look for logic that validates CSRF tokens only when a token parameter is present in the request (e.g., if (isset($_POST['csrf_token']) || isset($_GET['csrf_token'])) { validate... }). Note if the validation block is wrapped in a conditional that skips it entirely when no token is provided.
    Affected if The check() method contains conditional CSRF validation that bypasses validation when no token is present in the request
  4. Verify comment moderation functionality is accessible
    Check if the comment moderation features are enabled in the CMS. Navigate to Admin > Comments or similar admin section. Determine if users can access comment approve, delete, or edit actions.
    Affected if Comment moderation features are enabled and accessible to authenticated users (the attack requires these to be available)

Your environment is affected if you run e107 CMS versions prior to 2.3.5 where the session_handler::check() method conditionally validates CSRF tokens only when present, and comment moderation features are enabled.

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

Upgrade e107 CMS to version 2.3.5 or later, which enforces mandatory CSRF token validation for all state-changing operations.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

e107 CMS 2.3.5

  1. Backup the current e107 CMS installation and database before proceeding with any changes
  2. Download e107 CMS version 2.3.5 from the official source (e107.org or the official GitHub repository)
  3. Replace the existing e107 CMS files with the new version 2.3.5 files
  4. Verify that the session_handler::check() function now properly validates CSRF tokens (validates when present, rejects when absent)
  5. Test comment moderation functionality to ensure CSRF protection is working correctly
  6. Confirm the upgrade was successful by logging in and verifying the CMS functions normally

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
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,380
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-46620 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-46620 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