CVE-2026-53692
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 · uneditedRedeight CMS version 1.0 uses the MD5 algorithm without a salt to store user passwords. Because MD5 is a cryptographically broken algorithm and lacks salting, attackers who obtain the password hashes can trivially reverse them using rainbow tables, leading to the exposure of plaintext credentials.
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 confidenceRedeight CMS version 1.0 stores user passwords using the MD5 hashing algorithm without applying a salt. Because MD5 is cryptographically broken and Rainbow tables are publicly available, attackers who obtain the password hashes can trivially reverse them to plaintext credentials.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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? 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.
-
Confirm Redeight CMS installationLook for Redeight CMS files in the web root directory, check for typical CMS structure (admin, includes, or content folders with Redeight branding)Affected if Redeight CMS is present on the server
-
Verify CMS version is 1.0Check version file, about page, or changelog.txt typically found in the CMS root or admin areaAffected if Installed version is exactly 1.0
-
Inspect password storage mechanismExamine the database user table schema or user configuration files to see how password fields are stored - look for a password column containing 32-character hexadecimal hashesAffected if Password hashes appear as 32-character MD5 strings
-
Check for salt implementation in password hashingReview the CMS authentication code or configuration to determine if a salt value is concatenated to passwords before MD5 hashing, or inspect if stored hashes include a separate salt fieldAffected if No salt value is used in the password hashing process and raw MD5 is applied directly to passwords
-
Verify database or user files contain password hashesQuery the user table or inspect user data files to confirm actual password hashes are stored in the systemAffected if User password hashes are stored in the system database or user files
Environment is affected if Redeight CMS version 1.0 is installed and user passwords are stored using MD5 hashing without any salt value applied before hashing.
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 dataReplace MD5 with a modern password hashing algorithm such as bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2 that includes built-in salting. Additionally, implement a secure migration strategy for existing password hashes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53692 — 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-2026-53692 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