CVE-2026-9580
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 was determined in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.1. The affected element is the function LoginController.selectDepart of the file /sys/selectDepart. This manipulation causes improper access controls. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. Upgrading to version 3.9.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.
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 confidenceJeecgBoot up to v3.9.1 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the LoginController.selectDepart function at the /sys/selectDepart endpoint. This allows unauthorized access to department/tenant selection functionality, likely enabling privilege escalation or unauthorized actions by remote attackers.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify JeecgBoot installationSearch for JeecgBoot web applications in your environment. Look for the presence of jeecg-boot related WAR files, JAR files, or deployed web applications. Check application logs for 'jeecg' or 'JeecgBoot' identifiers.Affected if JeecgBoot is present in the environment
-
Determine JeecgBoot versionLocate the version information in the deployed JeecgBoot application. Check the pom.xml file, JAR manifest, or application startup logs for the version number. The version is typically displayed in the application banner during startup.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 3.9.2 or the version cannot be determined
-
Verify endpoint accessibilityAttempt to access the /sys/selectDepart endpoint without providing valid authentication credentials. Send an HTTP GET request to this endpoint using a tool like curl or a browser. For example: curl -k http://target-host/sys/selectDepartAffected if The endpoint returns department selection data or any successful HTTP response without requiring authentication (HTTP 200 OK)
You are affected if JeecgBoot is running with a version earlier than 3.9.2 and the /sys/selectDepart endpoint is accessible without authentication.
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 · scopedUpgrade JeecgBoot to version 3.9.2 which contains the fix for this improper access control vulnerability.
JeecgBoot version 3.9.2
- Backup the current JeecgBoot installation and database
- Download JeecgBoot version 3.9.2 from the official repository
- Deploy version 3.9.2 following the standard installation/upgrade procedure
- Verify the LoginController.selectDepart function at /sys/selectDepart now has proper access controls
- Test that legitimate users can still access their authorized departments
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9580 — 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-2026-9580 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