CVE-2026-59259
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 · uneditedn8n before versions 1.123.61, 2.27.4, and 2.28.1 contains a permission bypass vulnerability in external secrets handling caused by a mismatch between the static validation check and the runtime expression engine. An authenticated user with credential create or update permissions but without the externalSecret:list scope can embed external secret references into credentials in forms the static validation does not detect; these references resolve at workflow execution time, exposing secret values the user is not authorized to access. This issue only affects instances where an external secrets provider is configured and Advanced Permissions are in use.
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 confidencen8n before 1.123.61/2.27.4/2.28.1 has a permission bypass where static validation fails to detect external secret references embedded in credentials by users lacking externalSecret:list scope; these references resolve at workflow execution time, exposing unauthorized secret values.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 1.123.61>= 2.0.0, < 2.27.4= 2.28.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed n8n versionRun `n8n --version` or inspect the package.json file in the n8n installation directory. If using Docker, check the image tag or run `docker ps` and inspect the container label.Affected if The installed version is before 1.123.61, or between 2.0.0 and 2.27.4 exclusive, or exactly 2.28.0.
-
Verify if Advanced Permissions are enabledIn the n8n UI, go to Settings > Security > Advanced Permissions. Alternatively, check the environment variable N8N_AUTH_EXCLUDE_ENDPOINTS or review the database table `settings` for `executionsMode` or permission-related flags.Affected if Advanced Permissions are enabled (this is required for the externalSecret:list scope mechanism to exist).
-
Confirm external secrets providers are configuredIn the n8n UI, navigate to Settings > External Secrets. Check if any external secrets providers (such as HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, etc.) are added and enabled. Review the database table `credentials` for entries containing patterns like `$` or secret provider references.Affected if At least one external secrets provider is configured and enabled in the n8n instance.
-
Inspect credentials for external secret referencesReview all stored credentials in Settings > Credentials. Look for credential fields containing patterns that reference external secrets (e.g., expressions referencing {{ $credentials.secretName }} or similar syntax pointing to external providers). Query the database `credentials` table for JSON data containing external secret variable patterns.Affected if Credentials contain references to external secrets that could be resolved at execution time.
You are affected if your n8n version falls within the vulnerable range AND Advanced Permissions are enabled AND external secrets providers are configured, regardless of whether your user role explicitly has externalSecret:list scope.
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 · scoped1.123.612.27.4
Upgrade to n8n versions 1.123.61, 2.27.4, or 2.28.1. Alternatively, disable external secrets providers or revert to basic permissions if Advanced Permissions are not required.
Upgrade to n8n 1.123.61 (for 1.x), 2.27.4 (for 2.0.0-2.27.x), or 2.28.1 (for 2.28.0)
- 1. Identify current n8n version by checking the running container or installation
- 2. For n8n versions < 1.123.61: Upgrade to version 1.123.61 or later
- 3. For n8n versions >= 2.0.0 and < 2.27.4: Upgrade to version 2.27.4 or later
- 4. For n8n version 2.28.0: Upgrade to version 2.28.1 or later
- 5. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the n8n version after restart
- 6. Confirm external secrets functionality works correctly after upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-59259 — 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-2026-59259 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