CVE-2026-55744
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 Personal File Storage (PFS) module. In modules/pfs/inc/pfs.main.php, the file upload action ('a=upload') processes uploaded files without calling cot_check_xg to validate the anti-CSRF token, even though sibling actions such as 'delete' (line 272) 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.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCotonti 1.0.0 contains a CSRF vulnerability in the Personal File Storage module where the file upload action ('a=upload') processes uploaded files without validating the anti-CSRF token via cot_check_xg, unlike sibling actions such as 'delete' which properly perform this validation at line 272 of pfs.main.php.
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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Verify Cotonti installation and versionCheck if Cotonti is installed and identify the version by examining version.php or similar version file in the Cotonti root directory. Compare the version to 1.0.0.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0.0 or falls within the 1.0.x family.
-
Confirm PFS module is enabledCheck the modules/pfs/ directory exists and contains pfs.main.php. Verify the PFS module is active in the Cotonti administration panel or by inspecting the module configuration.Affected if The PFS module is installed and enabled on the Cotonti site.
-
Locate the upload action in pfs.main.phpOpen modules/pfs/inc/pfs.main.php and locate the code block handling the 'a=upload' action (typically within a switch or if block checking the 'a' parameter).Affected if The file exists and contains handling code for the 'a=upload' parameter.
-
Check for missing CSRF token validation on uploadExamine the upload action code block and search for a call to cot_check_xg() before processing the uploaded file. Compare this to the delete action around line 272 which should contain the cot_check_xg() call.Affected if The upload action lacks a cot_check_xg() token validation call while the delete action (line 272) includes proper token validation.
-
Identify if multipart file upload processes without validationVerify that the code path for 'a=upload' processes $_FILES or equivalent file upload data without first calling cot_check_xg() to validate the request token.Affected if File upload data is processed without CSRF token verification.
A user is affected if running Cotonti 1.0.0 with the PFS module enabled, and the pfs.main.php file shows the upload action processes files without calling cot_check_xg() for CSRF validation.
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 cot_check_xg token validation to the upload action in modules/pfs/inc/pfs.main.php before file processing occurs, following the same pattern used by the 'delete' action.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-55744 — 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-2026-55744 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