CVE Intelligence
High Authentication

CVE-2026-58202 — OpenReception: Confirmation-email links built from the request Host enable pending-account takeover via `POST /api/auth/resend-confirmation`

OpenReception's appointment booking software provides an end-to-end encrypted appointment booking platform. Prior to version 2.0.0, the account-confirmation link in emails is built from the request Host header, with no allowlist. The unauthenticated POST /api/auth/resend-confirmation rotates a pending invitee's confirmation token and emails a link whose host comes from the request. An attacker who sends one resend-confirmation with Host: attacker.example and a pending invitee's email causes that invitee to receive a confirmation email whose only link points to the attacker. If the invitee clicks, the one-time confirmation token reaches the attacker, who then confirms the account on the real tenant domain and registers a passkey they control, taking over the account before the legitimate invitee ever uses it. All released versions through v1.1.0 are affected; no patched version exists yet. Reaching the app with a spoofed Host depends on the front proxy: the stock Caddy catch-all forwards it, while an operator who configures explicit per-tenant proxy blocks is not affected (see Details 4). The invite path builds links from the trusted tenant.domain (invite/+server.ts:204-210); the resend-confirmation path builds them from the request Host. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.0.

Published Oct 23, 2026 · Updated Oct 29, 2026 · Sources: CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, NIST National Vulnerability Database · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+2
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

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.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.24%
ahead of 15% of scored CVEs · Oct 29, 2026
Affects
Open-reception
Appointment-booking-software
CVSS base
8.3
High · 2 source(s)

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.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

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.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Open-reception Appointment-booking-software).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (authentication), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Open-reception Appointment-booking-software version < 2.0.0 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
8.3 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 5.5 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.3 CVSS 3.1 High — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-640 · Weak Password Recovery Mechanism

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 24, 2026 → Oct 29, 2026 · 6 reading(s) · max 0.43%

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).
  • Review authentication logs: logins without MFA, anomalous sessions and recently created accounts.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSauthentication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 29, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · Received → Deferred
    Oct 26, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · Published → Received
    Oct 23, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record published
    Oct 23, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 8.3
    Oct 23, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · → Published
    Oct 23, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 23, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • CVE published
    Oct 23, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 23, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Open-reception
every CVE for this vendor
Authentication
same class
CWE-640
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-75525 OpenReception: unauthenticated ML-KEM key injection into the staff-crypto recipient directory in any tenant 6d
  • CVE-2026-75524 OpenReception: race condition in add-to-tunnel and create-new-client allows overlapping appointments for one agent 6d
  • CVE-2026-65825 OpenReception: one tenant's throttle row disables the PIN brute-force throttle for the same identifier in other tenants 6d
  • CVE-2026-65824 OpenReception: invite confirmation token is replayable within its validity window and re-issues a registration-bootstrap cookie 6d
  • CVE-2026-54460 OpenReception: Unauthenticated WebAuthn passkey injection via `POST /api/auth/passkeys` leads to account takeover Sep 17, 2026
  • CVE-2026-48087 OpenReception: WebAuthn passkey injection allows account takeover Aug 6, 2026

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-2026-58202 is "OpenReception: Confirmation-email links built from the request Host enable pending-account takeover via `POST /api/auth/resend-confirmation`", rated High. It affects Appointment-booking-software (Open-reception); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.24% 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.