Incorrect AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-863

CVE-2026-53642

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-07-06

Mitigation only

No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.

See remediation →

59/100

Remediation priority · Elevated

Remotely reachable Zero-click 6 weeks old

Official description

NVD · unedited

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when the "Require Email Confirmation" setting is enabled, a logged-in client with an unverified email address (`email_approved = 0`) can access all client-area pages (e.g. `/client/balance`, `/client/order/list`, `/client/invoice`) and read real account data, including wallet balances and transaction history. The API-side enforcement correctly restricts unverified clients to only profile-related endpoints, but the page-side enforcement is overly permissive, allowing any request whose path starts with `/client`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. No known workarounds that don't involve modifying the source code are available.

Technical summary

dbcve analysis · high confidence

FOSSBilling versions 0.5.6-0.7.2 have an authorization bypass where clients with unverified emails (`email_approved = 0`) can access all client-area pages (e.g., `/client/balance`, `/client/invoice`) despite the 'Require Email Confirmation' setting being enabled. The API correctly restricts unverified clients, but page-side routing only checks if the path starts with `/client` without verifying email approval status, allowing unauthorized access to wallet balances and transaction history.

MitigationUpgrade to FOSSBilling version 0.8.0 which contains the fix for proper email verification enforcement on page-side access control.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown

From the vector

Attack vector: Network
Complexity: Low
Privileges: Low
Authentication: X
User interaction: None
Scope: X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Am I affected?

dbcve checks

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

Identify installed FOSSBilling version

Locate the version file in the FOSSBilling installation directory or check the admin dashboard 'About' page

Affected if The installed version falls within 0.5.6 to 0.7.2 inclusive
Verify 'Require Email Confirmation' setting is enabled

Navigate to admin settings > general configuration > look for 'Require Email Confirmation' or similar email verification setting and confirm it is enabled

Affected if The setting is enabled and the FOSSBilling version is within the affected range
Identify client accounts with unverified emails

Query the database for clients where the email_approved field equals 0, or inspect client profiles in the admin panel for clients showing 'unverified' or 'pending' email status

Affected if There are client accounts with email_approved = 0 in the system
Test unauthorized access to client pages

Using a client account with unverified email (email_approved = 0), attempt to access pages such as /client/balance, /client/invoice, or /client/home while logged in

Affected if The unverified client account can access these pages and view sensitive information like wallet balances or transaction history despite the email verification requirement being enabled

If FOSSBilling version is 0.5.6-0.7.2 AND the 'Require Email Confirmation' setting is enabled AND unverified clients can access client-area pages, the environment is affected by this CVE.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Remediation

dbcve · scoped

Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime

Mitigation

Upgrade to FOSSBilling version 0.8.0 which contains the fix for proper email verification enforcement on page-side access control.

Recommended fix High confidence

0.8.0

Upgrade FOSSBilling from any version between 0.5.6 and 0.7.2 to version 0.8.0 or later

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory

Consultation1.0 h
Implementation2.0 h
Testing2.0 h
Review / QA1.0 h

6.0 hours of engineering $1,040

Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally

dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53642 — 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

Primary sources

github.com
nvd.nist.govNVD record

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-53642 in production — separate from our analysis above.

Notes0 Guidelines

Know something about CVE-2026-53642?

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.

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

At a glance

A fix existsA vendor remedy is published

Severity 5.3 Medium

Exploit likelihood EPSS, next 30 days 0.2%

Remediation

Need this fixed?

Have this fixed 6 hrs · Moderate

Typical engagement from $1,040

Get a fix See the full breakdown ↓

We specialise in CVE remediation. Send your environment and we’ll scope CVE-2026-53642 and return a fixed quote.

You’ll deal with our team directly and deploy the reviewed fix to staging first — never straight to production.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Check your environment

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.

Scan for this in your stack

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Practitioner notes

No notes yet

Official description

Technical summary

CVSS breakdown

Am I affected?

Remediation

References