Incorrect Privilege AssignmentWeakness · CWE-266

CVE-2026-9579

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-26
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
69/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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
A vulnerability was found in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.1. Impacted is the function user.getUsername of the file /sys/user/login/setting/userEdit of the component SysUser. The manipulation of the argument userIdentity results in improper access controls. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. Upgrading to version 3.9.2 is recommended to address this issue. The affected component should be upgraded.

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 · moderate confidence

JeecgBoot versions up to 3.9.1 contain an improper access control vulnerability in the SysUser component. The userEdit endpoint at /sys/user/login/setting/userEdit fails to properly validate authorization when manipulating the userIdentity argument in the user.getUsername function, allowing unauthorized users to potentially access or modify other user accounts.

MitigationUpgrade JeecgBoot to version 3.9.2 or later. As this is a medium-severity access control bypass with public exploits available, prioritize patching promptly.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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 checks

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

  1. Identify JeecgBoot installation and version
    Locate the JeecgBoot application and determine its version number (check build files, application metadata, or admin interface)
    Affected if The installed version is 3.9.1 or earlier (any version up to and including 3.9.1)
  2. Verify the vulnerable endpoint exists
    Confirm the /sys/user/login/setting/userEdit endpoint is exposed in the application (check application routes or web.xml if accessible)
    Affected if The endpoint is present and accessible without additional authentication safeguards
  3. Check access control configuration for the userEdit function
    Review the authorization configuration for the SysUser component's userEdit functionality to determine if userIdentity parameter manipulation is possible
    Affected if The userIdentity parameter can be manipulated to bypass authorization checks on the userEdit endpoint

You are affected if running JeecgBoot version 3.9.1 or earlier AND the /sys/user/login/setting/userEdit endpoint is accessible with the ability to manipulate the userIdentity parameter to bypass access controls.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade JeecgBoot to version 3.9.2 or later. As this is a medium-severity access control bypass with public exploits available, prioritize patching promptly.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

JeecgBoot 3.9.2

  1. 1. Back up the current JeecgBoot installation and database before upgrading
  2. 2. Download JeecgBoot version 3.9.2 from the official repository
  3. 3. Review the release notes for version 3.9.2 to understand changes and any required migration steps
  4. 4. Deploy version 3.9.2 to your environment following standard upgrade procedures
  5. 5. Verify the /sys/user/login/setting/userEdit endpoint now properly enforces access controls on the userIdentity parameter
  6. 6. Test that normal user workflows function correctly after the upgrade

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,720
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9579 — 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-2026-9579 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