CVE-2026-100612 — Capgo SSO Provider ID Authentication Bypass via Incomplete Migration
Capgo (capgo.app) through version 12.261.0 contains an incomplete access-control fix for the public.sso_providers table. Migration 20260826100000_sso_providers_block_direct_active_insert.sql installs a BEFORE UPDATE guard (enforce_sso_provider_client_update_guard()) that freezes only the dns_verified_at, domain, status and enforce_sso columns; provider_id (as well as metadata_url and attribute_mapping) is left writable. Because the table is granted ALL to the anon and authenticated roles with no column-level restriction, and PostgreSQL row-level security policies such as allow_org_admins_update_sso_providers constrain only which row may be updated and not which columns, a user holding the org_admin tier permission org.update_settings can PATCH provider_id over PostgREST to an identity provider under their control. Since provider_id is the trust anchor binding an email domain to an authorized IdP, the attacker can then authenticate through their own IdP while asserting the org owner's email; the server-side provider match succeeds and the merge routine attaches the attacker's SSO identity to the existing owner account, nulls its password, and deletes its other identities and sessions. This results in vertical privilege escalation from org_admin to org owner/super_admin, account takeover, and lockout of the legitimate owner. Exploitation requires that the target organization has an active SSO provider configured and that the attacker already holds org_admin in that organization. No patched version is available.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+4
- Technical severity (high)+6
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Capgo Capgo.app).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (access control), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.6 | CVSS 4.0 | High | — | — | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 8.6 | CVSS 4.0 | High | — | — | VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| 7.2 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 1.2 | 5.9 | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.2 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: disclosure@vulncheck.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (IDOR)
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Audit administrative actions and access to resources outside each user’s normal pattern.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · cap-go/capgo.app
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 7.2
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Medium CVE-2026-100629 Capgo backend before 12.127.5 Privilege Escalation via role_bindings PATCH 19d
- High CVE-2026-100622 capgo.app through 12.129.0 Cache Restoration of Deleted Bundles 19d
- Medium CVE-2026-100624 Capgo.app before 12.264.5 Upload Expiry Bypass via build upload 19d
- High CVE-2026-100623 Capgo Authentication Bypass via Direct PostgREST org_users Table Write 19d
- Medium CVE-2026-100626 capgo through 12.128.2 IDOR via PUT /app icon endpoint 19d
- Medium CVE-2026-100621 capgo.app Content-Lock Bypass via r2-direct Bundle Mutation 19d
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 fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- 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 record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-100612 is "Capgo SSO Provider ID Authentication Bypass via Incomplete Migration", rated High. It affects Capgo.app (Capgo); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.2 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.34% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.