CVE-2026-59235
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 · uneditedMissing Authorization (CWE-862) in BankAccountListController (app/Http/Controllers/Api/BankAccount/BankAccountListController.php), exposed at GET /api/bank-account, in Prospero Flow CRM <5.5.3, which allows a remote, authenticated attacker holding a low-privileged role (e.g. the "User"/"Usuario" role) to read arbitrary bank account records belonging to their company by sending an authenticated request to the endpoint with a valid bearer token, because the API route is protected only by the auth:api middleware and carries no permission gate, unlike the equivalent web route, which enforces can('read bank'), and the handler resolves records with Account::where('company_id', Auth::user()->company_id)->get(), performing only company scoping and no role or permission check before returning the data. This results in the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive banking information (e.g. IBAN, SWIFT/BIC, account identifiers) to users who should not have access to it.
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 confidenceThe BankAccountListController API endpoint (/api/bank-account) in Prospero Flow CRM lacks authorization checks, allowing any authenticated user with a valid API token to retrieve all bank account records within their company, regardless of role permissions. Unlike the equivalent web route that enforces can('read bank'), the API route only applies auth:api middleware with company-level scoping but no role or permission verification.
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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 the API endpoint configurationLocate the route definition for /api/bank-account in the application's routes file (typically api.php). Look for the BankAccountListController or BankAccountController handling this route.Affected if The route exists and is mapped to BankAccountListController without a permission middleware like can('read bank') or custom authorization check
-
Check the controller method for authorizationOpen the BankAccountListController file and inspect the index or list method that handles the /api/bank-account GET request. Look for any $this->authorize(), $this->authorize('read bank'), or can('read bank') calls within the method.Affected if The controller method lacks authorization checks and only relies on auth:api middleware for authentication, not authorization
-
Verify the route middleware stackIn the routes file, examine the middleware applied to the /api/bank-account route. Compare it to the equivalent web route for bank accounts which should include can('read bank').Affected if The API route only has auth:api middleware without can('read bank') or equivalent permission gate, while the web route has stricter controls
-
Test API access with a low-privilege tokenObtain an API token for a user who does NOT have the 'read bank' permission (e.g., a user with a different role). Make an authenticated GET request to /api/bank-account using that token.Affected if The request returns bank account records despite the user lacking the 'read bank' permission, indicating the authorization bypass is present
A user is affected if the /api/bank-account endpoint returns bank account data without verifying that the requesting user has the 'read bank' permission, even though an equivalent web route properly enforces this check.
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 · scopedAdd a permission gate (e.g., can('read bank') or equivalent authorization middleware) to the API route or controller method to match the web route's security model, ensuring only users with appropriate permissions can access bank account data.
Prospero Flow CRM version 5.5.3
- 1. Backup the current Prospero Flow CRM database and application files before upgrading.
- 2. Update Prospero Flow CRM to version 5.5.3 or later using the standard upgrade method (e.g., composer update or the application's built-in update mechanism).
- 3. After upgrading, verify that the /api/bank-account endpoint now enforces proper permission checks (can('read bank') or equivalent) before returning bank account data.
- 4. Test with a low-privileged User role account to confirm the vulnerability is remediated and bank account data is no longer accessible without proper permissions.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-59235 — 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-2026-59235 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