CVE-2026-54320
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 · uneditedDaytona is a secure and elastic infrastructure runtime for AI-generated code execution and agent workflows. Prior to 0.184.0, organization invitations could be accepted (and declined) by a user whose email matched the invitation but had not been verified. Daytona authenticates users via OIDC and matches an invitation's target email against the email in the caller's token, but the invitation accept and decline paths did not require that email to be verified, unlike organization creation, which already enforced verification. On identity providers that allow self-service signup and issue a session before the email is verified, an actor could register an address matching a pending invitation, leave it unverified, and accept the invitation, joining the target organization with the role the invitation carried (up to Owner). This vulnerability is fixed in 0.184.0.
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 confidenceDaytona versions prior to 0.184.0 allowed organization invitations to be accepted or declined by users whose email matched the invitation but had not been verified. The system authenticated users via OIDC and matched invitation target emails against token emails, but the accept/decline paths lacked email verification checks that organization creation already enforced. On IdPs issuing sessions before email verification, an attacker could register a matching email, leave it unverified, and accept the invitation to join the organization with the invited role (up to Owner).
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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
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 installed Daytona versionCheck the version of the Daytona server or container (e.g., via docker ps, helm list, or the --version flag if available)Affected if Version is prior to 0.184.0
-
Verify OIDC authentication is enabledCheck Daytona configuration for OIDC provider settings (typically in config.yaml, environment variables, or the management UI under Authentication/Identity Providers)Affected if OIDC authentication is configured and users can authenticate before email verification is complete
-
Review pending organization invitationsQuery the Daytona API or database for pending organization invitations (look for invitation records with status=pending)Affected if There are pending organization invitations in the system
-
Identify users with unverified email who accepted invitationsQuery user accounts with email verification status=false and check their organization membership/role associationsAffected if Any user with unverified email has joined an organization (particularly with elevated roles like Owner or Admin)
-
Check email verification enforcement in invitation workflowReview Daytona configuration or audit logs to determine whether invitation accept/decline endpoints verify email status before processingAffected if Email verification is not checked during invitation acceptance or decline operations
If running Daytona version below 0.184.0 with OIDC authentication enabled and there are organization invitations, users with unverified email addresses may have accepted invitations and gained unauthorized organization access.
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 · scopedUpgrade to Daytona version 0.184.0 or later, which enforces email verification before allowing invitation acceptance or decline.
0.184.0
- 1. Identify the current version of Daytona running in your environment
- 2. Upgrade Daytona to version 0.184.0 or later to remediate the improper authentication vulnerability
- 3. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the running version
- 4. Test organization invitation acceptance and decline flows to confirm email verification is now properly enforced
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-54320 — 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-2026-54320 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