CVE-2026-9245
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 · uneditedImproper input validation in the external authentication provider flow in Devolutions Server allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to redirect victims to an attacker-controlled domain via a crafted login link. This issue affects : * Devolutions Server 2026.1.6.0 through 2026.1.16.0 * Devolutions Server 2025.3.20.0 and earlier
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 confidenceThis is an open redirect vulnerability in Devolutions Server's external authentication provider flow. Improper input validation on the login link's redirect parameter allows unauthenticated remote attackers to craft malicious URLs that redirect authenticated victims to attacker-controlled domains after login.
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< 2025.3.22.0>= 2026.1.6.0, < 2026.1.19.0CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 installed Devolutions Server versionLocate and examine the version information for your Devolutions Server installation (typically accessible via the product interface, About section, or installation metadata). Compare it to the affected version ranges: versions < 2025.3.22.0 OR versions >= 2026.1.6.0 but < 2026.1.19.0.Affected if The installed version falls within either of the two vulnerable ranges: < 2025.3.22.0 or >= 2026.1.6.0 and < 2026.1.19.0
-
Determine if external authentication providers are enabledReview the authentication configuration settings in Devolutions Server to identify whether any external authentication providers (such as SAML, OAuth, OpenID Connect, or similar) are configured and active.Affected if External authentication providers are configured and enabled in the environment
-
Inspect redirect URL configurationExamine the authentication provider settings for any redirect or callback URL parameters. Look for redirect URL fields in the external authentication configuration that accept user-supplied values.Affected if The redirect URL configuration allows user-controlled or externally injectable values, or shows unexpected domains not matching your legitimate infrastructure
-
Audit recent authentication flows for suspicious redirectsReview authentication logs or audit trails for login events, particularly those involving external authentication providers, and look for any redirect parameter values pointing to unfamiliar or external domains.Affected if Logs contain redirect URLs referencing domains you do not recognize or that are not your legitimate authentication endpoints
You are affected if your Devolutions Server version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND external authentication providers are configured, regardless of whether you have already observed suspicious redirects.
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 · scoped2025.3.22.02026.1.19.0
Update to a patched version provided by Devolutions or apply vendor-supplied security patches. Users should verify redirect URLs before clicking login links from untrusted sources.
2025.3.22.0 or later (2025.x branch); 2026.1.19.0 or later (2026.1.x branch)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Devolutions Server version via the administration console or help/about page
- 2. If running version 2025.3.20.0 or earlier, or version 2026.1.6.0 through 2026.1.16.0, plan for an upgrade
- 3. Back up the Devolutions Server database and configuration files before upgrading
- 4. Download the appropriate fixed version from the official Devolutions Server download page (2025.3.22.0 or later for the 2025.x branch; 2026.1.19.0 or later for the 2026.1.x branch)
- 5. Run the installer and follow the upgrade wizard instructions
- 6. After upgrade, verify the external authentication provider flow works correctly and that URL redirection is properly validated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-9245 — 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-2026-9245 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