Vulnerability-Lookup

PYSEC-2026-110

Vulnerability from pysec - Published: 2026-02-16 11:15 - Updated: 2026-05-20 09:19

Details

It was possible to exfiltrate information about the pretix system through specially crafted placeholder names such as {{event.init.code.co_filename}}. This way, an attacker with the ability to control email templates (usually every user of the pretix backend) could retrieve sensitive information from the system configuration, including even database passwords or API keys. pretix does include mechanisms to prevent the usage of such malicious placeholders, however due to a mistake in the code, they were not fully effective for the email subject.
Placeholders in subjects and plain text bodies of emails were wrongfully evaluated twice. Therefore, if the first evaluation of a placeholder again contains a placeholder, this second placeholder was rendered. This allows the rendering of placeholders controlled by the ticket buyer, and therefore the exploitation of the first issue as a ticket buyer. Luckily, the only buyer-controlled placeholder available in pretix by default (that is not validated in a way that prevents the issue) is {invoice_company}, which is very unusual (but not impossible) to be contained in an email subject template. In addition to broadening the attack surface of the first issue, this could theoretically also leak information about an order to one of the attendees within that order. However, we also consider this scenario very unlikely under typical conditions.

Out of caution, we recommend that you rotate all passwords and API keys contained in your pretix.cfg https://docs.pretix.eu/self-hosting/config/ file.

Severity

5.9 (Medium)


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

Impacted products

Name	purl
pretix	pkg:pypi/pretix

Aliases

CVE-2026-2415

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "pretix",
        "purl": "pkg:pypi/pretix"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "4.16.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.1.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ],
      "versions": [
        "2023.10.0",
        "2023.10.1.post1",
        "2023.10.2",
        "2023.6.0",
        "2023.6.1",
        "2023.6.3",
        "2023.7.0",
        "2023.7.1",
        "2023.7.3",
        "2023.8.0",
        "2023.8.1",
        "2023.9.0",
        "2023.9.1",
        "2024.1.0",
        "2024.1.1",
        "2024.10.0",
        "2024.11.0",
        "2024.2.0",
        "2024.3.0",
        "2024.4.0",
        "2024.5.0",
        "2024.5.1",
        "2024.6.0",
        "2024.6.1",
        "2024.7.0",
        "2024.7.1",
        "2024.8.0",
        "2024.9.0",
        "2025.1.0",
        "2025.10.0",
        "2025.10.1",
        "2025.10.2",
        "2025.2.0",
        "2025.3.0",
        "2025.4.0",
        "2025.5.0",
        "2025.6.0",
        "2025.7.0",
        "2025.7.1",
        "2025.7.2",
        "2025.7.3",
        "2025.8.0",
        "2025.8.1",
        "2025.8.2",
        "2025.8.3",
        "2025.9.0",
        "2025.9.1",
        "2025.9.2",
        "2025.9.3",
        "2025.9.4",
        "2026.1.0",
        "4.16.0",
        "4.16.1",
        "4.17.0",
        "4.17.1",
        "4.18.0",
        "4.18.1",
        "4.18.2",
        "4.18.2.post1",
        "4.19.0",
        "4.20.0",
        "4.20.1",
        "4.20.2.post1",
        "4.20.4"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-2415"
  ],
  "details": "Emails sent by pretix can utilize placeholders that will be filled with customer data. For example, when {name}\n is used in an email template, it will  be replaced with the buyer\u0027s \nname for the final email. This mechanism contained two security-relevant\n bugs:\n\n\n\n  *  \nIt was possible to exfiltrate information about the pretix system through specially crafted placeholder names such as {{event.__init__.__code__.co_filename}}.\n This way, an attacker with the ability to control email templates \n(usually every user of the pretix backend) could retrieve sensitive \ninformation from the system configuration, including even database \npasswords or API keys. pretix does include mechanisms to prevent the usage of such \nmalicious placeholders, however due to a mistake in the code, they were \nnot fully effective for the email subject.\n\n\n\n\n  *  \nPlaceholders in subjects and plain text bodies of emails were \nwrongfully evaluated twice. Therefore, if the first evaluation of a \nplaceholder again contains a placeholder, this second placeholder was \nrendered. This allows the rendering of placeholders controlled by the \nticket buyer, and therefore the exploitation of the first issue as a \nticket buyer. Luckily, the only buyer-controlled placeholder available \nin pretix by default (that is not validated in a way that prevents the \nissue) is {invoice_company}, which is very unusual (but not\n impossible) to be contained in an email subject template. In addition \nto broadening the attack surface of the first issue, this could \ntheoretically also leak information about an order to one of the \nattendees within that order. However, we also consider this scenario \nvery unlikely under typical conditions.\n\n\nOut of caution, we recommend that you rotate all passwords and API keys contained in your  pretix.cfg https://docs.pretix.eu/self-hosting/config/ \u00a0file.",
  "id": "PYSEC-2026-110",
  "modified": "2026-05-20T09:19:11.567511Z",
  "published": "2026-02-16T11:15:56.047Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "FIX",
      "url": "https://pretix.eu/about/en/blog/20260216-release-2026-1-1/"
    }
  ],
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

CVE-2026-2415 (GCVE-0-2026-2415)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-02-16 10:15 – Updated: 2026-02-17 17:06

Title

Unsafe variable evaluation in email templates

Summary

Emails sent by pretix can utilize placeholders that will be filled with customer data. For example, when {name} is used in an email template, it will be replaced with the buyer's name for the final email. This mechanism contained two security-relevant bugs: * It was possible to exfiltrate information about the pretix system through specially crafted placeholder names such as {{event.__init__.__code__.co_filename}}. This way, an attacker with the ability to control email templates (usually every user of the pretix backend) could retrieve sensitive information from the system configuration, including even database passwords or API keys. pretix does include mechanisms to prevent the usage of such malicious placeholders, however due to a mistake in the code, they were not fully effective for the email subject. * Placeholders in subjects and plain text bodies of emails were wrongfully evaluated twice. Therefore, if the first evaluation of a placeholder again contains a placeholder, this second placeholder was rendered. This allows the rendering of placeholders controlled by the ticket buyer, and therefore the exploitation of the first issue as a ticket buyer. Luckily, the only buyer-controlled placeholder available in pretix by default (that is not validated in a way that prevents the issue) is {invoice_company}, which is very unusual (but not impossible) to be contained in an email subject template. In addition to broadening the attack surface of the first issue, this could theoretically also leak information about an order to one of the attendees within that order. However, we also consider this scenario very unlikely under typical conditions. Out of caution, we recommend that you rotate all passwords and API keys contained in your pretix.cfg https://docs.pretix.eu/self-hosting/config/ file.

Severity

7.5 (High)


                        
                          CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/RE:L/U:Red

CWE

CWE-627 - Dynamic Variable Evaluation

Assigner

rami.io

References

1 reference

URL	Tags
https://pretix.eu/about/en/blog/20260216-release-…	vendor-advisory

Impacted products

1 product

Vendor	Product	Version
pretix	pretix	Affected: 4.16.0 , < 2025.9.0 (python) Affected: 2025.9.0 , < 2025.10.0 (python) Affected: 2025.10.0 , < 2026.1.0 (python) Affected: 2026.1.0 , < 2026.1.1 (python)

Show details on NVD website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-2415",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "total"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-02-17T16:43:12.852157Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-02-17T17:06:39.418Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "collectionURL": "https://pypi.org/",
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "packageName": "pretix",
          "product": "pretix",
          "repo": "https://github.com/pretix/pretix",
          "vendor": "pretix",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "2025.9.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.16.0",
              "versionType": "python"
            },
            {
              "changes": [
                {
                  "at": "2025.9.4",
                  "status": "unaffected"
                }
              ],
              "lessThan": "2025.10.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "2025.9.0",
              "versionType": "python"
            },
            {
              "changes": [
                {
                  "at": "2025.10.2",
                  "status": "unaffected"
                }
              ],
              "lessThan": "2026.1.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "2025.10.0",
              "versionType": "python"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "2026.1.1",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "2026.1.0",
              "versionType": "python"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "\u003cp\u003eEmails sent by pretix can utilize placeholders that will be filled with customer data. For example, when \u003ccode\u003e{name}\u003c/code\u003e\n is used in an email template, it will  be replaced with the buyer\u0027s \nname for the final email. This mechanism contained two security-relevant\n bugs:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was possible to exfiltrate information about the pretix system through specially crafted placeholder names such as \u003ccode\u003e{{event.__init__.__code__.co_filename}}\u003c/code\u003e.\n This way, an attacker with the ability to control email templates \n(usually every user of the pretix backend) could retrieve sensitive \ninformation from the system configuration, including even database \npasswords or API keys. pretix does include mechanisms to prevent the usage of such \nmalicious placeholders, however due to a mistake in the code, they were \nnot fully effective for the email subject.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePlaceholders in subjects and plain text bodies of emails were \nwrongfully evaluated twice. Therefore, if the first evaluation of a \nplaceholder again contains a placeholder, this second placeholder was \nrendered. This allows the rendering of placeholders controlled by the \nticket buyer, and therefore the exploitation of the first issue as a \nticket buyer. Luckily, the only buyer-controlled placeholder available \nin pretix by default (that is not validated in a way that prevents the \nissue) is \u003ccode\u003e{invoice_company}\u003c/code\u003e, which is very unusual (but not\n impossible) to be contained in an email subject template. In addition \nto broadening the attack surface of the first issue, this could \ntheoretically also leak information about an order to one of the \nattendees within that order. However, we also consider this scenario \nvery unlikely under typical conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cdiv\u003eOut of caution, we recommend that you rotate all passwords and API keys contained in your \u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https://docs.pretix.eu/self-hosting/config/\"\u003epretix.cfg\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;file.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"
            }
          ],
          "value": "Emails sent by pretix can utilize placeholders that will be filled with customer data. For example, when {name}\n is used in an email template, it will  be replaced with the buyer\u0027s \nname for the final email. This mechanism contained two security-relevant\n bugs:\n\n\n\n  *  \nIt was possible to exfiltrate information about the pretix system through specially crafted placeholder names such as {{event.__init__.__code__.co_filename}}.\n This way, an attacker with the ability to control email templates \n(usually every user of the pretix backend) could retrieve sensitive \ninformation from the system configuration, including even database \npasswords or API keys. pretix does include mechanisms to prevent the usage of such \nmalicious placeholders, however due to a mistake in the code, they were \nnot fully effective for the email subject.\n\n\n\n\n  *  \nPlaceholders in subjects and plain text bodies of emails were \nwrongfully evaluated twice. Therefore, if the first evaluation of a \nplaceholder again contains a placeholder, this second placeholder was \nrendered. This allows the rendering of placeholders controlled by the \nticket buyer, and therefore the exploitation of the first issue as a \nticket buyer. Luckily, the only buyer-controlled placeholder available \nin pretix by default (that is not validated in a way that prevents the \nissue) is {invoice_company}, which is very unusual (but not\n impossible) to be contained in an email subject template. In addition \nto broadening the attack surface of the first issue, this could \ntheoretically also leak information about an order to one of the \nattendees within that order. However, we also consider this scenario \nvery unlikely under typical conditions.\n\n\nOut of caution, we recommend that you rotate all passwords and API keys contained in your  pretix.cfg https://docs.pretix.eu/self-hosting/config/ \u00a0file."
        }
      ],
      "impacts": [
        {
          "capecId": "CAPEC-545",
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "CAPEC-545 Pull Data from System Resources"
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "capecId": "CAPEC-77",
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "CAPEC-77 Manipulating User-Controlled Variables"
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "capecId": "CAPEC-54",
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "CAPEC-54 Query System for Information"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV4_0": {
            "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
            "attackRequirements": "NONE",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "baseScore": 7.5,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "exploitMaturity": "PROOF_OF_CONCEPT",
            "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
            "providerUrgency": "RED",
            "subAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "subConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "subIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/RE:L/U:Red",
            "version": "4.0",
            "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "LOW"
          },
          "format": "CVSS",
          "scenarios": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "GENERAL"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-627",
              "description": "CWE-627 Dynamic Variable Evaluation",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-02-16T10:15:09.149Z",
        "orgId": "655498c3-6ec5-4f0b-aea6-853b334d05a6",
        "shortName": "rami.io"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://pretix.eu/about/en/blog/20260216-release-2026-1-1/"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "INTERNAL"
      },
      "title": "Unsafe variable evaluation in email templates",
      "workarounds": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Limit backend access to trusted users, do not use user-controlled variables in the email template subjects."
            }
          ],
          "value": "Limit backend access to trusted users, do not use user-controlled variables in the email template subjects."
        }
      ],
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.5.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "655498c3-6ec5-4f0b-aea6-853b334d05a6",
    "assignerShortName": "rami.io",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-2415",
    "datePublished": "2026-02-16T10:15:09.149Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-02-12T17:02:46.966Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-02-17T17:06:39.418Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2"
}

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.

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Action not permitted

PYSEC-2026-110

CVE-2026-2415 (GCVE-0-2026-2415)

Tags

Sightings

Nomenclature