Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.49% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-19869High confidence
Privilege Escalation via Dropped Field-Level @authentication
neo4j · graphql
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-82M8-P9PX-C3X5 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.6HighCVSS 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 neo4j graphql 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
@neo4j/graphql from 5.2.0 until the patched versions fails to enforce field-level @authentication rules on root custom-resolver fields when a type-level @authentication rule is also present on the same operation type. When both a type-level @authentication (on Query/Mutation) and a field-level @authentication (on a root custom-resolver field within that type) are declared, only the type-level rule is evaluated and the field-level rule is silently discarded. As a result a stricter per-field requirement — such as an admin-role JWT claim (jwt: { roles_INCLUDES: "admin" }) — is never checked, and any client that satisfies the coarser type-level requirement can invoke the more-restricted field. No token forgery is involved: a legitimately issued, correctly signed non-admin token (e.g. roles: ["user"]) is sufficient.
What
@neo4j/graphql from 5.2.0 until the patched versions fails to enforce field-level @authentication rules on root custom-resolver fields when a type-level @authentication rule is also present on the same operation type. When both a type-level @authentication (on Query/Mutation) and a field-level @authentication (on a root custom-resolver field within that type) are declared, only the type-level rule is evaluated and the field-level rule is silently discarded. As a result a stricter per-field requirement — such as an admin-role JWT claim (jwt: { roles_INCLUDES: "admin" }) — is never checked, and any client that satisfies the coarser type-level requirement can invoke the more-restricted field. No token forgery is involved: a legitimately issued, correctly signed non-admin token (e.g. roles: ["user"]) is sufficient.
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
@neo4j/graphql from 5.2.0 until the patched versions fails to enforce field-level @authentication rules on root custom-resolver fields when a type-level @authentication rule is also present on the same operation type. When both a type-level @authentication (on Query/Mutation) and a field-level @authentication (on a root custom-resolver field within that type) are declared, only the type-level rule is evaluated and the field-level rule is silently discarded. As a result a stricter per-field requirement — such as an admin-role JWT claim (jwt: { roles_INCLUDES: "admin" }) — is never checked, and any client that satisfies the coarser type-level requirement can invoke the more-restricted field. No token forgery is involved: a legitimately issued, correctly signed non-admin token (e.g. roles: ["user"]) is sufficient.
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 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 → 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:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.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.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.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
- Fixed
- Upgrade the library to 7.6.0+ or 5.12.15+. v6 is end-of-life and will not receive a fix. v5 releases prior to 5.2.0 are not affected.
- For users who cannot upgrade immediately: do not combine a type-level @authentication with a field-level @authentication on the same root operation type. Because the type-level annotation is what shadows the field-level rule, removing it restores correct enforcement — instead apply a complete @authentication directive to each root field individually, including the full stricter rule on the sensitive field. Alternatively, enforce the stricter requirement inside the custom resolver's own code.
- 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 18 Aug 2026 · Last source change 19 Aug 2026, 16:02 UTC · CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-23
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-61047
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
- CVSS scoreCVSS vector changed while the displayed base score remained 7.6.CNA ↗
- Before
- 7.6 (CVSS 4.0 · CNA · CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X)
- After
- 7.6 (CVSS 4.0 · CNA · CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N)
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.