CVE-2026-57959
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 · uneditedHi.Events through 1.9.0 contains a promo code validation vulnerability where reservation validates usage count before asynchronous UpdateEventStatisticsJob increments it, allowing attackers to redeem limited promo codes unlimited times. Attackers can sequentially reserve multiple orders with the same restricted promo code, each reading order_usage_count=0 and passing validation, then complete them all at discounted prices without concurrent requests.
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 confidenceHi.Events through 1.9.0 has a time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition in promo code validation. The reservation checks the promo code's usage count synchronously but increments it asynchronously via UpdateEventStatisticsJob, allowing sequential reservations to each see count=0 and pass validation before any increment occurs.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Check Hi.Events versionLocate the version file or package.json in the Hi.Events installation directory to determine the installed version numberAffected if version is 1.9.0 or lower
-
Verify promo code feature is enabledCheck the application configuration or database for active promo codes in the systemAffected if promo codes are actively used in the application
-
Identify the UpdateEventStatisticsJob handlerLocate the job handler file named UpdateEventStatisticsJob in the codebase and examine its logic for incrementing promo code usage countsAffected if the job increments promo code usage asynchronously without locking
-
Examine promo code validation code pathFind the controller or service method that validates promo codes during reservation and verify if the usage count check and increment happen in separate operationsAffected if validation checks usage count synchronously while increment happens via a queued job
-
Check database transaction isolationReview the database queries used for promo code validation to determine if SELECT FOR UPDATE or atomic conditional updates are usedAffected if the check and increment are performed as separate, non-atomic operations
A user is affected if they are running Hi.Events version 1.9.0 or lower and use the promo code feature, with the usage count check and increment happening as separate non-atomic operations.
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 dataImplement atomic database operations (e.g., SELECT FOR UPDATE or conditional UPDATE with WHERE usage_count < limit) to ensure the usage count check and increment happen in a single atomic transaction, eliminating the race window.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-57959 — 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-2026-57959 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