What is CVE-2026-92593?

CVE-2026-92593 is Craft CMS 5.10.0 before 5.10.13 Authenticated Remote Code Execution. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-94 Code Injection.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-92593. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-92593 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-92593 using CVSS 8.8, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

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. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2026-92593

CVE-2026-92593 — Craft CMS 5.10.0 before 5.10.13 Authenticated Remote Code Execution

Craft CMS versions 5.10.0 through 5.10.12 contain an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-55794: the Controller::getPostedRedirectUrl() -> View::renderObjectTemplate() sink remained unsandboxed, and the same fix commit added a self-signing oracle in Cp::elementLabelHtml(). Because Craft/Yii HMAC tokens are not bound to a parameter name, an authenticated low-privilege control panel user with edit rights on a single element type can mint a token over attacker-controlled Twig for the returnUrl parameter and replay it as the redirect POST parameter, reaching the unsandboxed sink and achieving server-side template injection that executes arbitrary PHP code (full server compromise). The issue is fixed in 5.10.13.

Published Sep 16, 2026Updated Sep 16, 2026Sources: NVD, craftcms (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

craftcms

2 products listed

CVSS base

8.8

high · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade cms to a fixed release (5.10.13). 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.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
craftcms	cms	5.10.0 to < 5.10.13	Vulnerable
craftcms	cms	5.10.13	Patched

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

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.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
8.8	CVSS 3.1	high	2.8	5.9	NVD, craftcms (CNA)
8.7	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	craftcms (CNA)

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

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-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Bypass Protection Mechanism
Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Hide Activities

Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-94Code Injection

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

CAPEC-242 · Code InjectionCAPEC-77 · Manipulating User-Controlled VariablesCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

T1027.006Obfuscated Files or Information: HTML Smuggling
T1027.009Obfuscated Files or Information: Embedded Payloads
T1564.009Hide Artifacts: Resource Forking

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

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 /Yii.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable cms.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSEDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

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

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.8 (AV:N)
Sep 16, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 16, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 16, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

2 on the record

github.com/craftcms/cms/security/advisories/GHSA-5jmw-g85v-7jv2
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/craft-cms-5.10.0-before-5.10.13-authenticated-remote-code-execution
Vendor Advisory, Mitre

Elsewhere on this site

craftcmsevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-94other pages naming this weakness

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-2026-92593 is Craft CMS 5.10.0 before 5.10.13 Authenticated Remote Code Execution, a high vulnerability affecting cms from craftcms. 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-2026-92593. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. 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 8.8 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.