CVE-2026-61458
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 · uneditedPasswordPusher before 2.9.2 contains a brute-force vulnerability in the POST /p/:token/access endpoint that lacks route-specific rate limiting and per-push lockout mechanisms. Attackers who know a push token can systematically guess passphrases at 120 attempts per minute without triggering any push-level defense, making short or dictionary-derived passphrases practically recoverable within hours or days.
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 confidencePasswordPusher versions before 2.9.2 have a brute-force vulnerability in the POST /p/:token/access authentication endpoint. The endpoint lacks route-specific rate limiting and per-push lockout mechanisms, allowing attackers with a valid push token to attempt passphrases at approximately 120 attempts per minute without any push-level defense being triggered.
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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify PasswordPusher versionLocate the installed version by checking the application version file, Gemfile.lock, docker image tag, or by querying the application's /api/version endpoint if exposed. Compare against 2.9.2.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 2.9.2
-
Verify the vulnerable endpoint existsConfirm the application exposes the POST /p/:token/access endpoint by checking the routes configuration file or attempting a request to a test push token.Affected if The endpoint is accessible and responds to authentication requests
-
Check for route-specific rate limitingExamine the application configuration files (e.g., config/initializers/rack_attack.rb, config/routes.rb, or equivalent) for rate limiting rules specifically applied to the /p/:token/access route.Affected if No rate limiting rules are defined specifically for the /p/:token/access authentication endpoint
-
Verify per-push lockout configurationInspect application configuration for any per-push lockout or failed attempt counter mechanisms tied to individual push tokens (look for settings related to max_attempts, lockout, or passphrase_failure_count per token).Affected if No per-push lockout mechanism is configured or enabled for failed passphrase attempts
-
Audit authentication logsReview application authentication logs for patterns of repeated failed passphrase attempts against the same push token without account lockout triggers.Affected if Logs show rapid failed authentication attempts (approximately 120/minute) without any push-level defense being activated
You are affected if running PasswordPusher version before 2.9.2 AND the /p/:token/access endpoint is exposed without route-specific rate limiting or per-push lockout mechanisms in place.
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 · scopedImplement route-specific rate limiting and per-push lockout mechanisms to restrict authentication attempts and lock out push tokens after a configurable number of failed passphrase attempts.
PasswordPusher 2.9.2 or later
- 1. Identify the currently deployed version of PasswordPusher in your environment
- 2. If running a version before 2.9.2, plan an upgrade to version 2.9.2 or later
- 3. Consult the PasswordPusher release notes and upgrade documentation for your deployment method (Docker, source, etc.)
- 4. Perform the upgrade following standard procedures for your installation type
- 5. After upgrading, verify the /p/:token/access endpoint now has rate limiting enabled
- 6. Confirm the per-push lockout mechanism is functioning by testing with incorrect passphrases
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-61458 — 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-2026-61458 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