GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-92Q7-3QV3-754G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-10 15:33 – Updated: 2026-09-10 15:33
VLAI
Details

Capgo (capgo.app) backend through 12.242.4 does not validate parent-child delegation when processing the x-limited-key-id header. checkKeyByIdPg() in supabase/functions/_backend/utils/hono_middleware.ts resolves the attacker-supplied numeric API key ID using only the key ID, its expiration state, and the authenticating key's user_id, while hasLimitedRbacSubkeyScope() accepts any key with a non-organization (e.g., app-scoped) RBAC binding and validateSubkeyUser() only compares owning user IDs. Because Capgo treats API keys as independent RBAC principals with separate role bindings, an authenticated apikey_manager API key with no application access can supply the numeric ID of a more privileged same-owner key and have the middleware replace the authenticated principal and effective API-key secret with that key (setSubkeyAuthContext), exercising an app_admin sibling's permissions without knowing or submitting its secret. The issue was reproduced on release 12.242.4 (commit b3d02cdbc23ac59990785acacd1f113c07458568) after the fix for GHSA-8h52-44r7-w343; at the time of the advisory no patched version was available.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-88862"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-09-10T14:17:11Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Capgo (capgo.app) backend through 12.242.4 does not validate parent-child delegation when processing the x-limited-key-id header. checkKeyByIdPg() in supabase/functions/_backend/utils/hono_middleware.ts resolves the attacker-supplied numeric API key ID using only the key ID, its expiration state, and the authenticating key\u0027s user_id, while hasLimitedRbacSubkeyScope() accepts any key with a non-organization (e.g., app-scoped) RBAC binding and validateSubkeyUser() only compares owning user IDs. Because Capgo treats API keys as independent RBAC principals with separate role bindings, an authenticated apikey_manager API key with no application access can supply the numeric ID of a more privileged same-owner key and have the middleware replace the authenticated principal and effective API-key secret with that key (setSubkeyAuthContext), exercising an app_admin sibling\u0027s permissions without knowing or submitting its secret. The issue was reproduced on release 12.242.4 (commit b3d02cdbc23ac59990785acacd1f113c07458568) after the fix for GHSA-8h52-44r7-w343; at the time of the advisory no patched version was available.",
  "id": "GHSA-92q7-3qv3-754g",
  "modified": "2026-09-10T15:33:16Z",
  "published": "2026-09-10T15:33:16Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Cap-go/capgo.app/security/advisories/GHSA-5hjr-xhx8-x5j7"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-88862"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/capgo-api-key-manager-authentication-bypass-via-x-limited-key-id"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…