CVE-2026-47744
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 · uneditedShopper is a Headless e-commerce Admin Panel. Prior to 2.8.0, two distinct authorization defects in the team settings allowed any authenticated panel user to take over the RBAC system. Settings/Team/Index had no mount() authorization. Any authenticated user could load the page and use its public actions to create new roles and delete other users, including administrators. Settings/Team/RolePermission gated its write actions on the read-only view_users permission. Any user holding view_users could grant themselves or any other user arbitrary permissions, including manage_users and edit_orders, effectively escalating to full panel administrator from a read-only account. Combined, these two defects allow a low-privilege authenticated user to obtain administrator privileges and remove the legitimate administrators from the panel. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.8.0.
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 confidenceShopper Admin Panel versions before 2.8.0 had two critical authorization flaws: Settings/Team/Index lacked mount() authorization allowing any authenticated user to create roles and delete admins, and Settings/Team/RolePermission improperly gated write actions on a read-only view_users permission, enabling privilege escalation to full administrator.
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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Check installed Shopper Admin Panel versionLocate the Shopper version file or check the package.json/version manifest in your Shopper installation directory. Common paths include the root directory or a config/version file.Affected if Version is present and less than 2.8.0 (for example, 2.7.x, 2.6.x, etc.)
-
Verify Settings/Team/Index authorization configurationExamine the controller or route handler for the Settings/Team/Index endpoint. Look for mount() or similar authorization middleware that should gate access to role creation and admin deletion functions.Affected if No mount() authorization check is present, or the authorization check is missing/commented out for this endpoint
-
Test RolePermission endpoint access controlInspect the RolePermission permission logic. Determine whether write operations (create role, modify permissions, delete admin) are incorrectly gated behind the view_users permission rather than a dedicated write permission.Affected if Write actions on the RolePermission endpoint are allowed when the user only possesses the read-only view_users permission
-
Confirm low-privilege user escalation pathUsing a test account with minimal permissions (non-admin), attempt to access Settings/Team/Index to create a new role with elevated privileges or to delete an existing administrator account.Affected if A user with only basic/authenticated privileges can successfully create administrator roles or remove other admin users through these endpoints
Your environment is affected if the installed Shopper Admin Panel version is below 2.8.0 AND the Settings/Team/Index and RolePermission endpoints lack proper authorization controls, allowing any authenticated user to escalate privileges or remove administrators.
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 Shopper version 2.8.0 immediately. Additionally, audit all user accounts and role assignments for unauthorized privilege escalation, as the vulnerability may have been exploited.
2.8.0
- 1. Back up your current Shopper Admin Panel installation and database before proceeding with any upgrade.
- 2. Review the Shopper 2.8.0 release notes and changelog to understand any changes from your current version.
- 3. Update your Shopper installation to version 2.8.0 or later using your package manager (e.g., composer update or npm install depending on your setup).
- 4. Run any database migrations that come with the 2.8.0 release.
- 5. Verify that the authorization fixes are in place by checking that Settings/Team/Index requires proper mount() authorization and Settings/Team/RolePermission properly gates write actions.
- 6. Test the application to ensure normal functionality works as expected after the upgrade.
- 7. Review user accounts and roles to ensure no unauthorized privilege escalation occurred before the fix.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $4,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-47744 — 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-2026-47744 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