CVE-2026-60104
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 · uneditedBitwarden Server before 2026.6.0 does not verify that the email in a POST /auth-requests/admin-request body belongs to the authenticated caller, allowing a low-privileged organization member to obtain another user's vault key and a victim-scoped access token by creating a Trusted Device Encryption authentication request, bound to an attacker-controlled public key, that is readable from an unauthenticated endpoint once approved resulting in disclosure of the victim's vault key and account takeover.
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 confidenceBitwarden Server before 2026.6.0 lacks authorization validation on the POST /auth-requests/admin-request endpoint, allowing authenticated low-privileged organization members to specify any user's email in the request body. Attackers can create a Trusted Device Encryption authentication request bound to their own public key for a victim user, and after approval, read the victim's vault key from an unauthenticated endpoint, enabling full account takeover.
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< 2026.6.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Bitwarden Server versionCheck the installed Bitwarden Server version (e.g., via Docker image tag, Helm chart version, or running 'bw --version' if CLI tools are available, or check the underlying host package manager). Compare it against the affected range: versions prior to 2026.6.0 are vulnerable.Affected if Installed version is less than 2026.6.0
-
Review API access logs for admin-request endpointSearch API/server logs for POST requests to /auth-requests/admin-request. Inspect the request body to verify if the 'email' field matches the authenticated caller's email address.Affected if Logs show requests where the email in the request body differs from the authenticated user's email
-
Audit Trusted Device Encryption requestsCheck authentication request records or logs for Trusted Device Encryption (TDE) requests where the requestor email differs from the target user email, indicating potential exploitation.Affected if TDE authentication requests exist for users who did not initiate them, or requests show a low-privileged user targeting a high-privilege user
-
Inspect public key bindings on authentication requestsReview recent authentication requests to see if a low-privileged user's public key is bound to authentication requests created for a different user account.Affected if Authentication requests show a victim's email paired with the attacker's public key
If the Bitwarden Server version is below 2026.6.0 and evidence exists of admin-request calls with mismatched emails or unauthorized TDE requests, the environment is likely affected by this authorization bypass.
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 · scoped2026.6.0
Upgrade to Bitwarden Server 2026.6.0 or later, which implements proper validation ensuring the email in the admin-request body matches the authenticated caller.
2026.6.0
- Identify the current Bitwarden Server version running in your environment
- Upgrade Bitwarden Server to version 2026.6.0 or later
- After upgrading, verify the fix is applied by checking that the /auth-requests/admin-request endpoint now properly validates that the email in the request body matches the authenticated caller
- Confirm that low-privileged organization members can no longer create authentication requests bound to other users' emails
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,992.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-60104 — 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-2026-60104 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