Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.43% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-12593High confidence
Privilege escalation via forged API token creation in Axivion Dashboard OIDC/OAuth2/SSO subsystem
Qt · Axivion
8.7HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, 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 Qt Axivion 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.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
The implementation of an internal and undocumented Dashboard API endpoint (POST /api/users/~/{user}/tokens) forgot to ensure an HTTP request for creating an API Token for another user had sufficient permission to do so. Precondition for successful exploitation was a preexisting internal user (with more privileges than the attacker), the attacker knowing its login name and the attacker being able to authenticate to the Dashboard via OAuth/OIDC. The attacker would then have had to forge a token creation API request on behalf of the other user and could have authenticated and finalized the token creation with their own OAuth/OIDC credentials. In the worst case, this would mean an attacker could have become Dashboard Administrator and been able to perform all administrative actions if the preexisting internal user had administrative privileges. In combination with a separate weakness, this could have further led to code execution on the host system running the Dashboard with the privileges of the OS-User running the Dashboard server.
What
The implementation of an internal and undocumented Dashboard API endpoint (POST /api/users/~/{user}/tokens) forgot to ensure an HTTP request for creating an API Token for another user had sufficient permission to do so. Precondition for successful exploitation was a preexisting internal user (with more privileges than the attacker), the attacker knowing its login name and the attacker being able to authenticate to the Dashboard via OAuth/OIDC. The attacker would then have had to forge a token creation API request on behalf of the other user and could have authenticated and finalized the token creation with their own OAuth/OIDC credentials. In the worst case, this would mean an attacker could have become Dashboard Administrator and been able to perform all administrative actions if the preexisting internal user had administrative privileges. In combination with a separate weakness, this could have further led to code execution on the host system running the Dashboard with the privileges of the OS-User running the Dashboard server.
Why
The application reaches a protected operation without first confirming that the requester is authorised.
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
The implementation of an internal and undocumented Dashboard API endpoint (POST /api/users/~/{user}/tokens) forgot to ensure an HTTP request for creating an API Token for another user had sufficient permission to do so. Precondition for successful exploitation was a preexisting internal user (with more privileges than the attacker), the attacker knowing its login name and the attacker being able to authenticate to the Dashboard via OAuth/OIDC. The attacker would then have had to forge a token creation API request on behalf of the other user and could have authenticated and finalized the token creation with their own OAuth/OIDC credentials. In the worst case, this would mean an attacker could have become Dashboard Administrator and been able to perform all administrative actions if the preexisting internal user had administrative privileges. In combination with a separate weakness, this could have further led to code execution on the host system running the Dashboard with the privileges of the OS-User running the Dashboard server.
Why
The application reaches a protected operation without first confirming that the requester is authorised.
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 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 → Missing Authorization → 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-862 ↗
CWE-862: Missing Authorization. The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
- 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:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:LCommon 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.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCLowSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SALowSubsequent-system availability: A successful attack can cause a limited 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. - Patch available
- Fixed
- 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 9 Jul 2026 · Last source change 9 Jul 2026, 14:20 UTC · CWE-862 · Missing Authorization
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-2026-42589
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
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.