CVE-2026-56247
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 · uneditedCapgo before 12.128.2 allows org admins to assign org-scoped RBAC roles at app scope without validating role scope compatibility, including to pending invitees. Attackers can pre-seed malformed high-privilege bindings that survive invite acceptance, enabling accepted low-privilege users to perform unauthorized privileged app actions.
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 confidenceCapgo before 12.128.2 lacks proper RBAC role scope validation, allowing org admins to assign org-scoped roles at app scope. This scope incompatibility combined with the ability to assign roles to pending invitees enables attackers to pre-establish high-privilege bindings that persist after invite acceptance, resulting in privilege escalation where low-privilege users gain unauthorized privileged app actions.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Verify Capgo versionQuery the Capgo instance or check the admin dashboard for the current installed version numberAffected if The installed version is before 12.128.2
-
Inspect role assignment scope compatibilityReview role bindings in the admin console or via API to identify where org-scoped roles are assigned at the app scope levelAffected if Any org-scoped roles are found assigned to app-level resources or users
-
Audit pending invites for role bindingsCheck pending user invitations for any privileged role assignments that exist before invite acceptanceAffected if Pending invites have privileged org-level or app-level roles assigned to them
-
Identify privilege escalation via role inheritanceExamine user accounts that recently accepted invites to see if they inherited unexpected elevated permissionsAffected if Users who accepted invites have permissions that exceed what their role should provide at the assigned scope
A user is affected if running Capgo before 12.128.2 and any org-scoped roles exist at app scope or pending invites have privileged role bindings that would elevate permissions upon acceptance.
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 Capgo 12.128.2 or later which implements proper role scope compatibility validation and rejects incompatible role-to-scope assignments. Organizations should audit existing role bindings for scope mismatches.
12.128.2 or later
- Check current Capgo version (e.g., via package.json, CLI version command, or admin dashboard)
- Upgrade Capgo to version 12.128.2 or later
- Verify the upgrade completed successfully
- Review org RBAC role assignments to ensure no malformed bindings exist for pending invitees
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-2026-56247 — 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-2026-56247 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