Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.29% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-100627High confidence
Capgo bundle promotion API channel RBAC deny override bypass
Cap-go · capgo.app
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-633X-9X77-77GF ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.2HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Critical, raised one band.upgradedsince 28 Sep 2026
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Cap-go capgo.app 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.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Capgo (Cap-go/capgo.app) server backend Supabase functions contain an incorrect authorization flaw in the API-key bundle promotion path. The PUT /bundle endpoint, available to "all" and "write" API keys, dispatches to setChannel, which authorizes with checkPermission(c, 'channel.promote_bundle', { appId: body.app_id }) and omits the request's channel_id. Because the omitted scope field is passed to rbac_check_permission_direct as SQL NULL, and channel-scope override evaluation is gated on p_channel_id IS NOT NULL, per-channel allow/deny overrides are never evaluated. A principal holding app-level channel.promote_bundle (granted by default to the app_developer and app_uploader roles) can therefore promote a bundle to a channel for which an explicit per-channel deny override exists, updating public.channels.version for the supplied channel_id; the target channel is only validated after authorization. The issue is confirmed on main at commit de66fa51e7ff2f50283cc1455c3d80ab3eb0ae43 and likely earlier versions; no patched version is known at the time of publication.
What
Capgo (Cap-go/capgo.app) server backend Supabase functions contain an incorrect authorization flaw in the API-key bundle promotion path. The PUT /bundle endpoint, available to "all" and "write" API keys, dispatches to setChannel, which authorizes with checkPermission(c, 'channel.promote_bundle', { appId: body.app_id }) and omits the request's channel_id. Because the omitted scope field is passed to rbac_check_permission_direct as SQL NULL, and channel-scope override evaluation is gated on p_channel_id IS NOT NULL, per-channel allow/deny overrides are never evaluated. A principal holding app-level channel.promote_bundle (granted by default to the app_developer and app_uploader roles) can therefore promote a bundle to a channel for which an explicit per-channel deny override exists, updating public.channels.version for the supplied channel_id; the target channel is only validated after authorization. The issue is confirmed on main at commit de66fa51e7ff2f50283cc1455c3d80ab3eb0ae43 and likely earlier versions; no patched version is known at the time of publication.
Why
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Capgo (Cap-go/capgo.app) server backend Supabase functions contain an incorrect authorization flaw in the API-key bundle promotion path. The PUT /bundle endpoint, available to "all" and "write" API keys, dispatches to setChannel, which authorizes with checkPermission(c, 'channel.promote_bundle', { appId: body.app_id }) and omits the request's channel_id. Because the omitted scope field is passed to rbac_check_permission_direct as SQL NULL, and channel-scope override evaluation is gated on p_channel_id IS NOT NULL, per-channel allow/deny overrides are never evaluated. A principal holding app-level channel.promote_bundle (granted by default to the app_developer and app_uploader roles) can therefore promote a bundle to a channel for which an explicit per-channel deny override exists, updating public.channels.version for the supplied channel_id; the target channel is only validated after authorization. The issue is confirmed on main at commit de66fa51e7ff2f50283cc1455c3d80ab3eb0ae43 and likely earlier versions; no patched version is known at the time of publication.
Why
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low 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 Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-639 ↗
CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key. The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: 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.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCNoneVulnerable-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
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
- capgo.app: ≤ *
- 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 26 Sept 2026 · Last source change 30 Sept 2026, 17:20 UTC · CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-27
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-87721
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- See the vendor and CVE records for the affected range. · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- capgo.app: ≤ * · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.CVE.org ↗
- Before
- No public exploit
- After
- Public exploit reference
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-87721 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-87721"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.