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 0.54% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-53639High confidence
Sylius: IDOR on Shop Payment Request API endpoints
Sylius · Sylius
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-MR9R-H354-966R ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
6.3MediumCVSS 4.0
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium 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
- 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 Sylius Sylius 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 ranges3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| composersylius/sylius | >= 2.0.0, < 2.0.18 | 2.0.18 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 9 Jul 2026 |
| composersylius/sylius | >= 2.1.0, < 2.1.15 | 2.1.15 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 9 Jul 2026 |
| composersylius/sylius | >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.6 | 2.2.6 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 9 Jul 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, the `GET /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` and `PUT /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` endpoints look up the payment request solely by the hash from the URL. No ownership check is performed against the authenticated customer or the underlying order. An attacker who obtains a payment request hash can read the payment request and, through the `payment` IRI in the response, recover the underlying order's `tokenValue` (which itself grants access to the full order, items, addresses, customer email, totals); and/or update the payment request payload (e.g. `target_path`, `after_path`). These fields are used by the front-end controller to redirect the user after the payment, so an attacker can flip them to an attacker-controlled URL and intercept the buyer. The hash is a UUID, so it has to be obtained out-of-band (logs, shared links, referrer headers, a co-located client), but once it is known no other credential is required, neither authentication nor knowledge of the order token. The creation endpoint `POST /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payment-requests` shares the same flaw: it resolves the target order solely from the `tokenValue` in the URL without verifying that the caller owns the order. The issue is fixed in versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. As a workaround, add a query extension that filters the `GET` operation; decorate the `PUT` state provider, guard the `POST` creation endpoint with a command-bus middleware, and wire the services.
What
Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, the `GET /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` and `PUT /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` endpoints look up the payment request solely by the hash from the URL. No ownership check is performed against the authenticated customer or the underlying order. An attacker who obtains a payment request hash can read the payment request and, through the `payment` IRI in the response, recover the underlying order's `tokenValue` (which itself grants access to the full order, items, addresses, customer email, totals); and/or update the payment request payload (e.g. `target_path`, `after_path`). These fields are used by the front-end controller to redirect the user after the payment, so an attacker can flip them to an attacker-controlled URL and intercept the buyer. The hash is a UUID, so it has to be obtained out-of-band (logs, shared links, referrer headers, a co-located client), but once it is known no other credential is required, neither authentication nor knowledge of the order token. The creation endpoint `POST /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payment-requests` shares the same flaw: it resolves the target order solely from the `tokenValue` in the URL without verifying that the caller owns the order. The issue is fixed in versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. As a workaround, add a query extension that filters the `GET` operation; decorate the `PUT` state provider, guard the `POST` creation endpoint with a command-bus middleware, and wire the services.
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 without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, the `GET /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` and `PUT /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` endpoints look up the payment request solely by the hash from the URL. No ownership check is performed against the authenticated customer or the underlying order. An attacker who obtains a payment request hash can read the payment request and, through the `payment` IRI in the response, recover the underlying order's `tokenValue` (which itself grants access to the full order, items, addresses, customer email, totals); and/or update the payment request payload (e.g. `target_path`, `after_path`). These fields are used by the front-end controller to redirect the user after the payment, so an attacker can flip them to an attacker-controlled URL and intercept the buyer. The hash is a UUID, so it has to be obtained out-of-band (logs, shared links, referrer headers, a co-located client), but once it is known no other credential is required, neither authentication nor knowledge of the order token. The creation endpoint `POST /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payment-requests` shares the same flaw: it resolves the target order solely from the `tokenValue` in the URL without verifying that the caller owns the order. The issue is fixed in versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. As a workaround, add a query extension that filters the `GET` operation; decorate the `PUT` state provider, guard the `POST` creation endpoint with a command-bus middleware, and wire the services.
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 without authentication or user interaction. 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
- 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-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:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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.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.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. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- Sylius: >= 2.0.0, < 2.0.18, >= 2.1.0, < 2.1.15, >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.6
- 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 8 Sept 2026 · Last source change 9 Sept 2026, 16:03 UTC · CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-09
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-74285
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
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-74285 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-74285"}
- 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.