CVE-2026-55741
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 · uneditedCotonti 1.0.0 (master branch, commit f43f1fc3) is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in the administration configuration handler. In system/admin/admin.config.php, the configuration update action ('a=update') processes POST data via cot_config_update_options without calling cot_check_xg to validate the anti-CSRF token (the 'x' parameter), unlike other admin handlers (e.g. admin.structure.php, admin.cache.php).
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 confidenceCotonti 1.0.0 admin.config.php fails to validate the anti-CSRF token ('x' parameter) via cot_check_xg() before processing configuration updates through cot_config_update_options(), allowing remote attackers to forge administrative configuration changes by tricking logged-in admins into visiting malicious pages.
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
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Identify Cotonti installationLocate the main Cotonti installation directory. Check for the presence of admin.config.php in the /path/to/cotonti/admin/ directory.Affected if The file admin.config.php exists in the Cotonti admin directory.
-
Verify Cotonti versionCheck the version file or header of core files (such as init.php or version.php) in the Cotonti installation root directory.Affected if The installed version is Cotonti 1.0.0 (or any version where admin.config.php lacks CSRF validation).
-
Examine admin.config.php for CSRF validationOpen admin.config.php and search for the string 'cot_check_xg' before the call to 'cot_config_update_options'. Use a text editor or grep: grep -n 'cot_check_xg' admin.config.php and grep -n 'cot_config_update_options' admin.config.php.Affected if The file contains cot_config_update_options() but does NOT contain a cot_check_xg() call before it processes POST data.
-
Check POST handling in admin.config.phpReview the code section that handles configuration updates. Look for the logic that processes $_POST or $_REQUEST data for configuration changes.Affected if The configuration update handler processes POST data without first calling cot_check_xg() to validate the 'x' parameter (CSRF token).
A user is affected if they run Cotonti 1.0.0 where admin.config.php processes configuration updates without calling cot_check_xg() to validate the CSRF token before handling the POST data.
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 dataAdd a cot_check_xg() call at the beginning of the configuration update action handler in admin.config.php to validate the CSRF token before processing any POST data, consistent with other admin handlers.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-55741 — 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-2026-55741 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