Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.27% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-12986High confidence
Payara Payara Server — Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Payara · Payara Server
7.3HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh 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
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Payara Payara Server 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.
Open-source package ranges2 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mavenfish.payara.distributions:payara | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 4.0.0; fixed 7.2026.6 | 7.2026.6 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 25 Sep 2026 |
| mavenfish.payara.distributions:payara | >= 4.0.0, < 7.2026.6 | 7.2026.6 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 25 Sep 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
A critical vulnerability in Admin GUI in Payara Server Full 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x, 7.2026.x, 6.2025.x, 6.2024.x on All platforms that allows the attacker to leak the admin gfresttoken to an attacker-controlled host that can result in a full unauthenticated takeover of Payara admin domain. A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the DownloadServlet of the Admin GUI in Payara Server allows a remote attacker to exfiltrate the administrator's REST session token (gfresttoken) to an attacker-controlled host via a crafted request URL. Combined with the absence of CSRF protection on DownloadServlet, an unauthenticated attacker can trick a logged-in administrator into triggering the token leak, then replay the stolen token to gain full administrative access to the Payara domain, leading to arbitrary code execution via WAR deployment. The vulnerability exists in the DownloadServlet and associated ContentSource implementations (LogViewerContentSource, LogFilesContentSource, LBConfigContentSource, ClientStubsContentSource) within the admingui:console-common module.
What
A critical vulnerability in Admin GUI in Payara Server Full 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x, 7.2026.x, 6.2025.x, 6.2024.x on All platforms that allows the attacker to leak the admin gfresttoken to an attacker-controlled host that can result in a full unauthenticated takeover of Payara admin domain. A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the DownloadServlet of the Admin GUI in Payara Server allows a remote attacker to exfiltrate the administrator's REST session token (gfresttoken) to an attacker-controlled host via a crafted request URL. Combined with the absence of CSRF protection on DownloadServlet, an unauthenticated attacker can trick a logged-in administrator into triggering the token leak, then replay the stolen token to gain full administrative access to the Payara domain, leading to arbitrary code execution via WAR deployment. The vulnerability exists in the DownloadServlet and associated ContentSource implementations (LogViewerContentSource, LogFilesContentSource, LBConfigContentSource, ClientStubsContentSource) within the admingui:console-common module.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
A critical vulnerability in Admin GUI in Payara Server Full 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x, 7.2026.x, 6.2025.x, 6.2024.x on All platforms that allows the attacker to leak the admin gfresttoken to an attacker-controlled host that can result in a full unauthenticated takeover of Payara admin domain. A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the DownloadServlet of the Admin GUI in Payara Server allows a remote attacker to exfiltrate the administrator's REST session token (gfresttoken) to an attacker-controlled host via a crafted request URL. Combined with the absence of CSRF protection on DownloadServlet, an unauthenticated attacker can trick a logged-in administrator into triggering the token leak, then replay the stolen token to gain full administrative access to the Payara domain, leading to arbitrary code execution via WAR deployment. The vulnerability exists in the DownloadServlet and associated ContentSource implementations (LogViewerContentSource, LogFilesContentSource, LBConfigContentSource, ClientStubsContentSource) within the admingui:console-common module.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
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
- an adjacent network → Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Adjacent
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Active interaction required
- 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-352 ↗
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/S:P/AU:Y/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:AmberCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVAdjacentAttack vector: The attacker must be on an adjacent or logically close network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIActiveUser interaction: A user must take a deliberate action for exploitation to succeed.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.SCHighSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SIHighSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SAHighSubsequent-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
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
- Payara Server: 7.2025.1 < 7.2026.6, 7.0.0 < 7.1.0, 6.0.0 < 6.39.0, 5.20.0 < 5.88.0, 4.1.144 < 4.1.2.191.56, 5.181 ≤ 5.201.2, 5.2020.1 ≤ 5.2022.5, 6.2023.1 ≤ 6.2025.11
- 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. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 24 Jun 2026 · Last source change 24 Jun 2026, 14:52 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
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-2026-38793
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.