dbcve.org
CWE-203Weakness · CWE-203

CVE-2026-56339

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-15
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click 6 weeks old

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 · unedited
Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the Supabase PostgREST SECURITY DEFINER RPC function public.rescind_invitation that allows unauthenticated attackers to enumerate organization existence. The function returns distinct error messages (NO_ORG vs NO_RIGHTS) when called with only a publishable API key, enabling attackers to discover valid organization IDs and increase the attack surface for targeted phishing or social engineering campaigns.

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 confidence

The Capgo application before version 12.128.2 has an information disclosure vulnerability in the Supabase PostgREST SECURITY DEFINER RPC function public.rescind_invitation. When called with only a publishable API key, the function returns different error messages - NO_ORG for non-existent organizations and NO_RIGHTS for existing ones without permission - allowing unauthenticated attackers to enumerate valid organization IDs.

MitigationUpdate to Capgo version 12.128.2 or later, or modify the public.rescind_invitation function to return uniform error messages that do not disclose whether an organization exists.

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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm Capgo is deployed
    Identify if the Capgo application is installed in your environment. This is a mobile-first CI/CD platform that uses Supabase as its backend database.
    Affected if Capgo application is present and using Supabase as backend
  2. Check Capgo version
    Locate the installed Capgo version in your deployment configuration, package manifest, or running application. Common locations include package.json, a version file, or the application admin dashboard.
    Affected if version is below 12.128.2 (or version cannot be determined and falls within any range below 12.128.2)
  3. Verify Supabase PostgREST function exists
    Query the Supabase database for the public.rescind_invitation function. Run: SELECT proname, prosrc FROM pg_proc WHERE proname = 'rescind_invitation' AND pronamespace = (SELECT oid FROM pg_namespace WHERE nspname = 'public');
    Affected if the function public.rescind_invitation exists in the database
  4. Test error message behavior
    Call the public.rescind_invitation RPC function using only a publishable API key (no auth token). Make two test calls: one with a clearly non-existent organization ID and one with a valid organization ID you do not have permission to access. Compare the error messages returned.
    Affected if error messages differ between the two cases (e.g., NO_ORG for non-existent vs NO_RIGHTS for existing without permission)
  5. Check function security definition
    Inspect the function definition for SECURITY DEFINER setting. Query: SELECT routine_definition FROM information_schema.routines WHERE routine_name = 'rescind_invitation' AND routine_schema = 'public';
    Affected if function uses SECURITY DEFINER and allows execution with only a publishable API key

User is affected if running Capgo version below 12.128.2 AND the public.rescind_invitation function returns distinct error messages (NO_ORG vs NO_RIGHTS) when called with a publishable API key alone, allowing organization ID enumeration.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update to Capgo version 12.128.2 or later, or modify the public.rescind_invitation function to return uniform error messages that do not disclose whether an organization exists.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

Capgo/capgo version 12.128.2 or later

  1. Identify the current version of Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) in use
  2. Upgrade to version 12.128.2 or later to resolve the information disclosure vulnerability
  3. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version
  4. Test the public.rescend_invitation function to confirm it no longer returns distinct error messages (NO_ORG vs NO_RIGHTS) that would allow organization enumeration

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-56339 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-56339 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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