CVE-2026-59255
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 · uneditedBloodHound through 9.4.0, fixed in commit 8f79035, contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the custom-nodes API endpoints that allows any authenticated user to modify the global graph schema. Attackers with valid session tokens can create, update, or delete custom node types affecting all users and tenants by invoking unprotected POST, PUT, and DELETE operations on the custom-nodes endpoints.
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 confidenceBloodHound through 9.4.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in custom-nodes API endpoints where any authenticated user can create, update, or delete custom node types in the global graph schema via unprotected POST, PUT, and DELETE operations. This affects all users and tenants since the schema changes are global.
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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
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 BloodHound versionCheck the running BloodHound instance version via the UI footer, API response from the /api/health endpoint, or by inspecting the container/package versionAffected if Installed version is 9.4.0 or lower (any version through 9.4.0)
-
Verify custom-nodes API endpoint existsSend an HTTP request to GET /api/v2/custom-nodes or /api/custom-nodes (exact path may vary) and confirm the endpoint respondsAffected if The custom-nodes API endpoint is accessible and returns a response (even if empty)
-
Test unauthorized modification accessUsing a low-privilege or non-admin user account, attempt a POST request to create a custom node type, or PUT/DELETE to modify/delete one. Use an HTTP tool like curl or Burp to send the request without admin credentialsAffected if The operation succeeds without returning an authorization error (401/403)
-
Inspect global graph schema for unauthorized custom nodesQuery the BloodHound API or database for custom node type definitions. Check if any custom nodes exist that were not created by an administratorAffected if Custom node types exist in the global schema that were not created by an admin user or that you did not intentionally create
You are affected if running BloodHound through version 9.4.0 AND the custom-nodes API accepts POST/PUT/DELETE requests from any authenticated user without admin authorization, or if unexpected custom nodes appear in the global schema.
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 proper authorization checks on custom-nodes API endpoints to restrict schema modifications to administrators only, using role-based access controls before allowing POST, PUT, or DELETE operations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-59255 — 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-2026-59255 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