Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.27% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-26481High confidence
Insufficient user check in FlowTokens by Email stage
goauthentik · authentik
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-3XF5-PQVF-RQQ3 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
9.1CriticalCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedCritical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs goauthentik authentik and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Critical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
authentik is an open-source Identity Provider. Due to an insufficient access check, a recovery flow link that is created by an admin (or sent via email by an admin) can be used to set the password for any arbitrary user. This attack is only possible if a recovery flow exists, which has both an Identification and an Email stage bound to it. If the flow has policies on the identification stage to skip it when the flow is restored (by checking `request.context['is_restored']`), the flow is not affected by this. With this flow in place, an administrator must create a recovery Link or send a recovery URL to the attacker, who can, due to the improper validation of the token create, set the password for any account. Regardless, for custom recovery flows it is recommended to add a policy that checks if the flow is restored, and skips the identification stage. This issue has been fixed in versions 2023.2.3, 2023.1.3 and 2022.12.2.
What
authentik is an open-source Identity Provider. Due to an insufficient access check, a recovery flow link that is created by an admin (or sent via email by an admin) can be used to set the password for any arbitrary user. This attack is only possible if a recovery flow exists, which has both an Identification and an Email stage bound to it. If the flow has policies on the identification stage to skip it when the flow is restored (by checking `request.context['is_restored']`), the flow is not affected by this. With this flow in place, an administrator must create a recovery Link or send a recovery URL to the attacker, who can, due to the improper validation of the token create, set the password for any account. Regardless, for custom recovery flows it is recommended to add a policy that checks if the flow is restored, and skips the identification stage. This issue has been fixed in versions 2023.2.3, 2023.1.3 and 2022.12.2.
Why
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
authentik is an open-source Identity Provider. Due to an insufficient access check, a recovery flow link that is created by an admin (or sent via email by an admin) can be used to set the password for any arbitrary user. This attack is only possible if a recovery flow exists, which has both an Identification and an Email stage bound to it. If the flow has policies on the identification stage to skip it when the flow is restored (by checking `request.context['is_restored']`), the flow is not affected by this. With this flow in place, an administrator must create a recovery Link or send a recovery URL to the attacker, who can, due to the improper validation of the token create, set the password for any account. Regardless, for custom recovery flows it is recommended to add a policy that checks if the flow is restored, and skips the identification stage. This issue has been fixed in versions 2023.2.3, 2023.1.3 and 2022.12.2.
Why
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- High: elevated access is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-345 ↗
CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRHighPrivileges required: The attacker needs elevated or administrative privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- authentik: < 2023.2.3, < 2023.1.3, < 2022.12.2
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 4 Mar 2023 · Last source change 25 Feb 2025, 15:01 UTC · CWE-345 · Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-30289
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.