Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.96% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-11430High confidence
Grav CMS Scheduler Webhook Authentication Bypass via Null Short-Circuit
Trilby Media · grav-plugin-scheduler-webhook
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-XWV3-2MV2-W33X ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
6.9MediumCVSS 4.0
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- 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 Trilby Media grav-plugin-scheduler-webhook and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Grav CMS's scheduler-webhook plugin contains an authentication bypass in the webhook token check. When the webhook feature is enabled but no webhookToken is configured, a compound conditional short-circuits and skips token validation, so an unauthenticated remote attacker who can reach POST /scheduler/webhook can trigger the operator's already-configured scheduled jobs by sending a single request. The primitive is triggering-existing-jobs, not attacker-chosen command execution: the attacker controls when the jobs run and which one runs (via ?job=), but does not control what the jobs do. Code execution follows only when the operator has configured a job that shells out, and even then the attacker controls timing rather than payload. Not a default-install issue: reaching the endpoint requires the separate scheduler-webhook GPM plugin to be installed, scheduler.modern.webhook.enabled to be true (default false), and no webhookToken to be configured; a stock Grav or Grav-Admin install exposes nothing here.
What
Grav CMS's scheduler-webhook plugin contains an authentication bypass in the webhook token check. When the webhook feature is enabled but no webhookToken is configured, a compound conditional short-circuits and skips token validation, so an unauthenticated remote attacker who can reach POST /scheduler/webhook can trigger the operator's already-configured scheduled jobs by sending a single request. The primitive is triggering-existing-jobs, not attacker-chosen command execution: the attacker controls when the jobs run and which one runs (via ?job=), but does not control what the jobs do. Code execution follows only when the operator has configured a job that shells out, and even then the attacker controls timing rather than payload. Not a default-install issue: reaching the endpoint requires the separate scheduler-webhook GPM plugin to be installed, scheduler.modern.webhook.enabled to be true (default false), and no webhookToken to be configured; a stock Grav or Grav-Admin install exposes nothing here.
Why
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may bypass an access boundary or take over an account.
What
Grav CMS's scheduler-webhook plugin contains an authentication bypass in the webhook token check. When the webhook feature is enabled but no webhookToken is configured, a compound conditional short-circuits and skips token validation, so an unauthenticated remote attacker who can reach POST /scheduler/webhook can trigger the operator's already-configured scheduled jobs by sending a single request. The primitive is triggering-existing-jobs, not attacker-chosen command execution: the attacker controls when the jobs run and which one runs (via ?job=), but does not control what the jobs do. Code execution follows only when the operator has configured a job that shells out, and even then the attacker controls timing rather than payload. Not a default-install issue: reaching the endpoint requires the separate scheduler-webhook GPM plugin to be installed, scheduler.modern.webhook.enabled to be true (default false), and no webhookToken to be configured; a stock Grav or Grav-Admin install exposes nothing here.
Why
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may bypass an access boundary or take over an account.
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 → Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm → bypass an access boundary or take over an account
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- 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-303 ↗
CWE-303: Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm. The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
- 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:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCLowVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VILowVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VALowVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a limited 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
- 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. - Patch available
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- 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 7 Aug 2026 · Last source change 1 Oct 2026, 21:44 UTC · CWE-303 · Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
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-2026-54601
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
- < 1.1.3; < 2.0.9 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- grav-plugin-scheduler-webhook: < 1.1.3; getgrav/grav: < 2.0.9 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
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.