dbcve.org
SQL InjectionWeakness · CWE-89

CVE-2026-48134

MEDIUM · 5.6 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 →
65/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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
When the DLP is active, the UserCheck Web Portal contains an input-handling issue in the UserChoice flow. Under specific conditions, an attacker who can access the UserCheck Ask page could attempt to manipulate the Security Gateway's stored DLP/UserCheck incident information. This could lead to disruptions such as loss of stored incident entries, incorrect handling of pending approvals, or resource impact if the issue is abused repeatedly. Exposure is reduced if the UserCheck Portal is not accessible from untrusted networks.

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

This is a Check Point DLP vulnerability in the UserCheck Web Portal's UserChoice flow. An attacker with access to the UserCheck Ask page can manipulate input to affect the Security Gateway's stored DLP/UserCheck incident data, potentially causing loss of incident entries, approval handling errors, or resource exhaustion from repeated attacks.

MitigationRestrict access to the UserCheck Portal from untrusted networks and apply any available Check Point patches for this DLP input-handling issue.

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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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. Confirm Check Point DLP deployment
    Identify if Check Point DLP blade or policy is installed on the Security Gateway. Run 'cpstat -d' or check SmartConsole/Management UI for DLP blade status.
    Affected if Check Point DLP is not deployed or the DLP blade is disabled on the Security Gateway.
  2. Verify UserCheck Web Portal is enabled
    In SmartConsole, navigate to Gateways > Gateway Properties > UserCheck > Portal Settings, or run 'cpstat -f usercheck' on the gateway CLI to confirm the UserCheck portal service is active.
    Affected if The UserCheck Web Portal is disabled and not accessible to users.
  3. Confirm DLP policy is active
    Check if there is an active DLP policy rulebase in SmartConsole under Security Policies > DLP, or run 'dlp_policy get' on the management server to list active DLP rules.
    Affected if No DLP policy is installed or the DLP policy is set to 'Inactive' mode.
  4. Check UserChoice flow configuration
    In SmartConsole, review DLP rules that use the UserChoice action. Inspect the rule's 'UserCheck settings' to confirm the UserChoice workflow is configured. This flow allows users to approve/deny incidents through the portal.
    Affected if No DLP rules utilize the UserChoice action; only automated actions (like 'Ask User' without UserChoice or 'Drop') are in use.
  5. Inspect incident storage for anomalies
    On the Security Gateway, review DLP incident logs in SmartLog or the management server's incident database for unusual patterns: sudden spikes in incident counts, missing incidents, or approvals occurring outside expected workflows.
    Affected if Incident logs appear normal with no unexpected manipulation or approval anomalies.

The environment is affected if Check Point DLP is deployed with an active policy, the UserCheck Web Portal is enabled, and DLP rules with UserChoice workflow are configured, allowing authenticated portal users to potentially manipulate stored incident data.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Restrict access to the UserCheck Portal from untrusted networks and apply any available Check Point patches for this DLP input-handling issue.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-48134 — 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-2026-48134 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