CVE-2026-50875
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 · uneditedIncorrect access control in the /{form}/webhooks/{webhook} endpoint of Deck9 Input v2.0.1 allows authenticated attackers to arbitrarily modify or delete another tenant's webhook via a crafted request.
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 confidenceThis is an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in Deck9 Input v2.0.1 where the /{form}/webhooks/{webhook} endpoint fails to validate that the authenticated user has proper authorization to access the specific webhook resource. An authenticated attacker can access, modify, or delete webhooks belonging to other tenants by manipulating the webhook identifier in the request URL, indicating a missing tenant isolation check in the authorization logic.
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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Verify Deck9 Input versionCheck the installed version of Deck9 Input by inspecting the application binaries, container image tags, or version file (e.g., run 'deck9-input --version' or check the package.json/changelog if available)Affected if The installed version is 2.0.1 or falls within the affected range around v2.0.1
-
Confirm webhook endpoint is accessibleVerify that the /{form}/webhooks/{webhook} endpoint is exposed in the application by reviewing your routing configuration or API documentationAffected if The webhook endpoint is routable and accepts requests
-
Check multi-tenancy configurationInspect the tenant configuration or database to confirm whether multi-tenancy is enabled for this Deck9 Input deployment (look for tenant_id fields in webhooks table or tenant context settings)Affected if Multi-tenancy is enabled and multiple tenants share the same Deck9 Input instance
-
Review webhook authorization policyExamine the authorization logic for the webhook endpoint in the application code or configuration to determine if tenant ownership is validated before allowing access to /{form}/webhooks/{webhook}Affected if No tenant ownership check exists in the webhook endpoint authorization logic
-
Inspect webhook access logsReview application or API logs for requests to /{form}/webhooks/{webhook} where the webhook identifier does not belong to the authenticated user's tenantAffected if Log entries show cross-tenant webhook access attempts or unusual webhook ID patterns
A user is affected if Deck9 Input v2.0.1 is running with the webhook endpoint exposed, multi-tenancy is enabled, and no tenant-scoped authorization check exists on that endpoint.
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.
From vendor dataImplement proper tenant-scoped authorization checks in the webhook endpoint to verify the authenticated user's tenant matches the webhook's owner before allowing any modification or deletion operations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-50875 — 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-2026-50875 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