CVE-2026-54220
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 · unediteduBB.threads is vulnerable to a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) due to a lack of protective mechanisms. This allows an attacker to trick an authenticated user into executing unintended actions. Because vendor contact attempts were unsuccessful, the vulnerability has only been confirmed in version 7.7.5 but may also affect other versions.
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 confidenceuBB.threads version 7.7.5 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) due to missing anti-CSRF validation on state-changing operations. An attacker can craft malicious requests that execute within the context of an authenticated user's session, allowing unauthorized actions such as modifying settings, posting content, or changing user data.
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
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- A
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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 uBB.threads versionLocate the version file or check the admin control panel footer for the exact installed version numberAffected if version is 7.7.5 exactly or falls within the 7.7.x branch prior to fix
-
Inspect POST forms for anti-CSRF tokensView the HTML source of state-changing forms (e.g., settings, posting, user profile) and check if each form includes a hidden token field or unique identifierAffected if forms lack a hidden CSRF token field or have no token validation mechanism
-
Verify token validation on form submissionSubmit a test POST request without a token and observe whether the server rejects or processes the requestAffected if server accepts and processes requests without validating a token
-
Check cookie SameSite attributesInspect cookies set by the application using browser dev tools or curl, and verify if SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax is configuredAffected if cookies lack SameSite attribute or have SameSite=None without Secure flag
-
Audit DELETE and PUT endpointsReview JavaScript or form actions that perform DELETE or PUT operations to confirm they include token-based validationAffected if DELETE/PUT endpoints have no token validation
User is affected if running uBB.threads 7.7.5 AND state-changing operations lack anti-CSRF tokens or proper SameSite cookie settings.
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 anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) or SameSite cookie attributes for all POST, PUT, and DELETE operations to validate request origin.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-54220 — 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-2026-54220 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