CVE-2026-72861 — Appwrite Templates github-issue-bot Skips Webhook Signature Verification When the X-Hub-Signature-256 Header Is Absent
The github-issue-bot templates in appwrite/templates verify the GitHub webhook signature with an inverted condition. verifyWebhook in node/github-issue-bot/src/github.js and in node-typescript/github-issue-bot/src/github.ts returns "typeof signature !== 'string' || (await verify(...))", so when the X-Hub-Signature-256 header is absent the first operand is true, the logical OR short-circuits, and the function reports success without performing any HMAC verification. main.js rejects a request only when verifyWebhook returns false, so an unauthenticated request carrying no signature passes the check. Processing then continues to postComment, which takes the repository and issue objects directly from the request body, letting the caller direct the deployed function to post a comment on a repository and issue of their choosing using the configured GITHUB_TOKEN, with the issue author login from the body interpolated into the comment text.
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)+3
- Technical severity (medium)+3
- Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3
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 (Appwrite Templates).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.9 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.9 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| 5.8 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 3.9 | 1.4 | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 5.8 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: disclosure@vulncheck.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
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).
- Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · appwrite/templates
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 5.8
- 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
6 on the record
- www.vulncheck.com/advisories/appwrite-templates-github-issue-bot-skips-webhook-signatur
- github.com/appwrite/templates/blob/1.1.2/node-typescript/github-issue-bot/src/gi
- github.com/appwrite/templates/issues/350
- github.com/appwrite/templates/blob/1.1.2/node/github-issue-bot/src/main.js
- github.com/appwrite/templates/blob/1.1.2/node/github-issue-bot/src/github.js
- github.com/appwrite/templates
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 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-2026-72861 is "Appwrite Templates github-issue-bot Skips Webhook Signature Verification When the X-Hub-Signature-256 Header Is Absent", rated Medium. It affects Templates (Appwrite); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.27% 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.