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

CVE-2026-48612

HIGH · 8.0 CVSS v3.0 Published 2026-06-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable

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
Improper state verification in the OAuth implementation could allow an attacker to manipulate the authentication flow and cause a victim’s account to be linked to an attacker-controlled account. This can result in unauthorized account linking and potential account takeover.

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 an OAuth state parameter validation vulnerability. The OAuth protocol uses a 'state' parameter to prevent CSRF attacks by verifying that the callback matches the original authorization request. Improper implementation means the state is either not validated, uses predictable values, or fails to verify ownership, allowing an attacker to craft a malicious authorization flow that links the victim's account to the attacker's OAuth identity.

MitigationImplement proper OAuth state parameter validation: generate a cryptographically random, unique state value for each authorization request (stored server-side or as a signed token), and validate it matches on the callback before linking accounts.

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
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/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 checks

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

  1. Verify state parameter is included in authorization requests
    Inspect your OAuth authorization URL construction code and confirm the 'state' parameter is being generated and appended to the authorization endpoint URL (e.g., https://authprovider.com/authorize?client_id=...&state=...)
    Affected if The 'state' parameter is missing from the authorization request entirely
  2. Confirm state is cryptographically random and unique
    Review the code that generates the state value - it should use a cryptographically secure random number generator (e.g., CSPRNG, random_bytes, secrets module) and produce values with sufficient entropy (minimum 128-bit) that are unique per request
    Affected if The state uses predictable values (e.g., sequential numbers, timestamps alone, base64-encoded user ID) or a weak random function (e.g., mt_rand, Math.random)
  3. Ensure state is stored or bound to the user's session
    Check that the generated state is stored server-side (database, session store, cache) or encoded in a signed token (JWT with signature) tied to the user's session before redirecting to the authorization provider
    Affected if The state is not persisted or bound to the initiating user's session, allowing an attacker to inject their own state value
  4. Validate state on callback before processing
    Examine the OAuth callback handler code - it must retrieve the state from the callback URL, compare it against the stored/session-bound state, and reject the flow if it does not match or is missing
    Affected if The callback endpoint does not validate the state parameter, accepts any value, or only checks if a state exists without verifying it matches the original request

You are affected if your OAuth implementation either omits the state parameter, uses predictable/non-random state values, fails to bind state to the user's session, or does not validate state on the callback endpoint.

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

Implement proper OAuth state parameter validation: generate a cryptographically random, unique state value for each authorization request (stored server-side or as a signed token), and validate it matches on the callback before linking accounts.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-48612 — 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-2026-48612 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