CVE-2026-55745
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.editfolder.php, the folder update action ('a=update') updates folder metadata (title, description, public/gallery flags) without calling cot_check_xg to validate the anti-CSRF token.
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 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Personal File Storage (PFS) module. The folder update action ('a=update') in modules/pfs/inc/pfs.editfolder.php fails to call cot_check_xg() to validate the anti-CSRF token, allowing remote attackers to forge requests that modify victim folder metadata including title, description, and public/gallery settings.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify Cotonti installation versionLocate the version file or version declaration in your Cotonti installation. Check for a version.php file in the system root or inspect the main configuration file for a version marker.Affected if The installed version matches Cotonti 1.0.0 exactly or falls within an unpatched version range.
-
Confirm PFS module is installedVerify the Personal File Storage (PFS) module is present and enabled. Check for the modules/pfs/ directory and confirm the module is listed as active in the Cotonti module administration panel.Affected if The PFS module is installed and enabled in the Cotonti system.
-
Inspect pfs.editfolder.php for missing anti-CSRF validationOpen modules/pfs/inc/pfs.editfolder.php and locate the code block handling the folder update action (the 'a=update' case). Examine whether this block calls cot_check_xg() to validate the anti-CSRF token before processing any folder metadata changes.Affected if The 'a=update' action handler in pfs.editfolder.php does not contain a call to cot_check_xg() for token validation.
You are affected if you are running Cotonti 1.0.0 with the PFS module enabled and the pfs.editfolder.php file lacks cot_check_xg() token validation in the folder update action.
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() anti-CSRF token validation to the folder update action in pfs.editfolder.php before processing any folder metadata changes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-55745 — 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-2026-55745 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