CVE-2026-4947
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 · uneditedAddressed a potential insecure direct object reference (IDOR) vulnerability in the signing invitation acceptance process. Under certain conditions, this issue could have allowed an attacker to access or modify unauthorized resources by manipulating user-supplied object identifiers, potentially leading to forged signatures and compromising the integrity and authenticity of documents undergoing the signing process. The issue was caused by insufficient authorization validation on referenced resources during request processing.
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 confidenceThis is an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in the signing invitation acceptance process. Attackers can manipulate user-supplied object identifiers to access or modify unauthorized resources, potentially allowing forged signatures and compromising document integrity and authenticity.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 2026-03-26CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Foxit Esign deploymentConfirm your organization uses Foxit Esign for document signing. Check with your administrator or review any Foxit Esign subscriptions or integrations in use.Affected if Foxit Esign is not in use, then this CVE does not apply to your environment
-
Determine Foxit Esign version or deployment dateContact your Foxit Esign administrator or check your service dashboard to identify the exact version or deployment date of your Foxit Esign instance. Compare it to the fix date of 2026-03-26.Affected if Your Foxit Esign version predates 2026-03-26, indicating you are running a vulnerable version
-
Check if signing invitation acceptance is enabledReview your Foxit Esign configuration settings to determine if the signing invitation acceptance feature is active. This may be found in admin settings, workflow configurations, or document templates.Affected if The signing invitation acceptance feature is enabled and in use, making the IDOR vulnerability potentially exploitable in your environment
-
Review access controls on signing workflowsAudit your current authorization configuration for signing invitation acceptance processes. Verify whether explicit permission checks exist for resource access during invitation acceptance.Affected if No explicit authorization validation is configured for signing invitation acceptance, indicating the vulnerable behavior may be present
Your environment is affected if you are running Foxit Esign with a version or deployment date prior to 2026-03-26 and have the signing invitation acceptance feature enabled.
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 · scoped2026-03-26
Implement proper authorization validation checks on all referenced resources before allowing access or modification during the signing invitation acceptance process. Verify that the authenticated user has explicit permission to access the requested resource.
Foxit eSign version 2026-03-26 or later
- 1. Identify the current version of Foxit eSign installed in your environment
- 2. Navigate to the official Foxit website or your product's admin console to download the latest version
- 3. Ensure you have a complete backup of all documents and configuration data
- 4. Uninstall the current version of Foxit eSign
- 5. Install the updated version (2026-03-26 or later release)
- 6. Verify the installation completed successfully
- 7. Test the signing invitation acceptance process to confirm the IDOR vulnerability is remediated
- 8. Validate that document integrity and signature authenticity functions work correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4947 — 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-2026-4947 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