CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
mediumAccess Control

CVE-2026-86773

CVE-2026-86773 — Snipe-IT 8.6.3 Broken Access Control via Kit Update Endpoints

Snipe-IT through version 8.6.3 fails to perform object-level authorization in the updateLicense, updateConsumable, updateAccessory, and updateModel endpoints and in the storeModel endpoint for Predefined Kits. The existing check authorizes only the parent Predefined Kit (update on PredefinedKit) and not the child object being attached. As a result, an authenticated user holding only the kits.edit permission can attach a License, Consumable, Accessory, or Asset Model that they are otherwise denied (HTTP 403) from reading directly to a Predefined Kit, and the kit relation index then discloses the attached object's name back to that low-privilege user. This is the update-path and storeModel counterpart to CVE-2026-55478, which fixed only the storeLicense, storeConsumable, and storeAccessory methods in 8.6.2. Note that updateModel was code-vulnerable in 8.6.3 but not reachable in practice because a route-name typo bound the route to a nonexistent controller method, causing HTTP 500 responses. The issue is fixed in Snipe-IT 8.7.0.

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

5.4

medium · 2 sources

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

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

Low

Scope

Unchanged

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
5.4CVSS 3.1medium2.82.5VulnCheck (CNA), grokability (CNA), GHSA
5.3CVSS 4.0mediumgrokability (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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-863 · Incorrect Authorization

  • Read Application Data
  • Read Files or Directories
  • Modify Application Data
  • Modify Files or Directories

Mitigation: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-863Incorrect Authorization

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-1 · Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLsCAPEC-122 · Privilege Abuse

Detection

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

  • 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 5.4 (AV:N)

    Sep 9, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Sep 9, 2026 · NVD

  4. Added · GHSA-5x4v-9547-947f 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-2026-86773 is Snipe-IT 8.6.3 Broken Access Control via Kit Update Endpoints, 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-2026-86773. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-86773. 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 5.4 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.