CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
mediumInfo Disclosure

CVE-2026-86767

CVE-2026-86767 — Snipe-IT before 8.7.0 Cross-Company Read via requested-assets

Snipe-IT versions before 8.7.0 fail to apply company scope filtering to the GET /hardware/requested endpoint when Full Multiple Company Support is enabled, allowing authenticated users with assets.view permission to read pending asset requests from all companies. Attackers can retrieve cross-tenant data including requested asset names, requester display names and profile links, locations, and expected check-in dates without parameter manipulation.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, grokability (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

grokability

2 products listed

CVSS base

5

medium · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade snipe-it to a fixed release (8.7.0). Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
grokabilitysnipe-it8.6.3 to < 8.7.0Vulnerable
grokabilitysnipe-it8.7.0Patched

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

None

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

None

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5CVSS 3.1medium3.11.4NVD, grokability (CNA), GHSA
5.3CVSS 4.0mediumgrokability (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

  • Read Application Data::

Mitigation: Compartmentalize the system to have safe areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.::

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-643 · Identify Shared Files/Directories on SystemCAPEC-313 · Passive OS FingerprintingCAPEC-293 · Traceroute Route EnumerationCAPEC-22 · Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-13 · Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-576 · Group Permission FootprintingCAPEC-224 · FingerprintingCAPEC-116 · ExcavationCAPEC-472 · Browser FingerprintingCAPEC-292 · Host DiscoveryCAPEC-574 · Services FootprintingCAPEC-497 · File Discovery
  • T1562.003Impair Defenses: Impair Command History Logging
  • T1574.006Hijack Execution Flow: Dynamic Linker Hijacking
  • T1574.007Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /hardware/requested.
  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable snipe-it.
web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 5.0 (AV:N)

    Sep 9, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Sep 9, 2026 · NVD

  4. Added · GHSA-29vx-j9vj-57vv published (medium)

    Sep 9, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

  5. CVE published by MITRE.

    Sep 9, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-86767 is Snipe-IT before 8.7.0 Cross-Company Read via requested-assets, a medium vulnerability affecting snipe-it from grokability. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-86767. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-86767. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 5 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.