VulnerabilityAwaiting classification

CVE-2026-9092

CRITICAL · 9.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Casdoor versions 2.362.0 and earlier contain a vulnerability involving unverified email binding that may enable account takeover. The getExistUserByBindingRule function matches users by email without checking the email_verified claim from upstream providers; the idp.UserInfo struct does not even include a EmailVerified field. An attacker can supply an unverified email claim from an upstream provider to take over accounts that use the same email address.

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 confidence

Casdoor versions 2.362.0 and earlier have an account takeover vulnerability where the getExistUserByBindingRule function matches users by email address from upstream OAuth/OIDC providers without validating the email_verified claim. Since the idp.UserInfo struct lacks an EmailVerified field, attackers can bind an unverified email from a malicious or compromised upstream provider to an existing account that uses the same email address, achieving account takeover.

MitigationUpgrade Casdoor to a version newer than 2.362.0 that implements email_verified claim validation in the user binding logic, or temporarily disable email-based account binding until a patch is applied.

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
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Casdoor version
    Check the running Casdoor instance version by querying the /api/version endpoint, checking the Docker image tag, or examining the binary/build information. Compare against the affected range: versions 2.362.0 and earlier are vulnerable.
    Affected if The installed version is 2.362.0 or earlier.
  2. Identify configured OAuth/OIDC providers
    Review Casdoor's provider configuration (typically via the admin UI under 'Providers' or via the API at /api/providers) to list all configured upstream identity providers such as Google, GitHub, OIDC, OAuth2, or SAML providers.
    Affected if Any OAuth/OIDC provider is configured, as these could be leveraged to send unverified emails for account binding.
  3. Check email-based binding settings
    Examine Casdoor's account binding configuration (look for settings related to 'enable binding' or 'bind password' in the organization or application settings) to determine if email-based account binding is enabled.
    Affected if Email-based account binding is enabled, allowing users to bind accounts via email from external providers.
  4. Identify users with external provider email bindings
    Query the user database or API (at /api/users) to identify users who have bound their account using an email from an external OAuth/OIDC provider. Look at the provider-related fields in user records.
    Affected if Any user accounts have been bound using email from an external provider, indicating the vulnerable binding logic has been exercised.

A user is affected if they are running Casdoor version 2.362.0 or earlier with OAuth/OIDC providers configured and email-based binding enabled, regardless of whether accounts have already been bound.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade Casdoor to a version newer than 2.362.0 that implements email_verified claim validation in the user binding logic, or temporarily disable email-based account binding until a patch is applied.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing5.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,790
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,464.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9092 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-9092 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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