CVE-2026-6375
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 · uneditedA vulnerability in SpiceJet’s booking API allows unauthenticated users to query passenger name records (PNRs) without any access controls. Because PNR identifiers follow a predictable pattern, an attacker could systematically enumerate valid records and obtain associated passenger names. This flaw stems from missing authorization checks on an endpoint intended for authenticated profile access.
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 SpiceJet booking API lacks authorization checks on a PNR query endpoint, allowing unauthenticated users to retrieve passenger name records by exploiting predictable PNR identifier patterns. An attacker can systematically enumerate valid PNRs and extract associated passenger names without any credentials.
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 booking API endpoint exposureReview your API gateway, load balancer, or web server logs for requests to endpoints related to passenger name record (PNR) retrieval, such as /booking/pnr/{pnr}, /api/v1/booking/{pnr}, or similar paths that accept PNR parametersAffected if The endpoint is publicly accessible without authentication requirements defined in the API gateway or ingress configuration
-
Test unauthenticated PNR accessSend a GET request to the suspected PNR lookup endpoint with a valid-format PNR (typically 6 alphanumeric characters) without including any authentication headers, cookies, or tokensAffected if The server returns HTTP 200 with passenger name or booking details instead of returning HTTP 401 Unauthorized or HTTP 403 Forbidden
-
Verify authorization bypass across different PNRsUsing the same unauthenticated request, test multiple different PNR values (e.g., ABC123, XYZ789) to confirm the endpoint accepts arbitrary PNR values without validating ownershipAffected if Each request returns passenger booking data without requiring proof of legitimate access to that specific PNR
-
Check API security configurationInspect the API management layer, web application firewall (WAF), or backend service configuration for the booking endpoint to verify whether authorization policies are defined and enforcedAffected if No authorization rule exists for the PNR endpoint, or the security layer allows all requests to pass through without validating user identity against the requested booking record
If the PNR lookup endpoint is accessible without authentication and returns passenger names for arbitrary PNR values without verifying requester ownership, the environment is affected by this broken access control vulnerability.
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 authentication and role-based authorization checks on all PNR query endpoints, and introduce rate limiting or CAPTCHA to prevent systematic enumeration of PNR identifiers.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6375 — 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-2026-6375 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