CVE Intelligence
Critical Authentication

CVE-2026-80349 — TarsWeb decides whether a request comes from a trusted local caller using a…

TarsWeb decides whether a request comes from a trusted local caller using a client-controlled header. app.js sets Koa's proxy option to true without naming which upstream proxies may be trusted and without limiting the number of forwarded hops, so the request address Koa reports is taken from the X-Forwarded-For header supplied by the caller. In midware/ssoMidware.js a single branch covers both the ignored-path list and the ignoreIps allowlist from config/loginConf.js, which contains the loopback address, and that branch assigns the effective account identity from the uid query parameter before falling through to the request without validating any ticket, cookie or password. A request carrying a forged X-Forwarded-For value naming the loopback address and a uid naming an existing account therefore reaches every route the console mounts as that account, including an administrator, with no credential of any kind. Those routes include user and role administration, service configuration, and package upload and deployment. Version 3.0.16 separates the two branches so that a match on the address allowlist assigns the configured default account rather than one named by the caller.

Published Aug 26, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database · CNA: disclosure@vulncheck.com

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
  • Technical severity (critical)+10

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
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
—
Affected products not yet identified by the sources.
CVSS base
9.8
Critical · 1 source(s)

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. Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet: follow the vendor advisory and map candidate assets by component name.
  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. 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.

Affected products not yet identified by the sources.

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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
9.3 CVSS 4.0 Critical — — disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.8 CVSS 3.1 Critical 3.9 5.9 disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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-290 · Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

Other CVEs with this weakness →

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
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 9.8
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 26, 2026 · disclosure@vulncheck.com

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

5 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Authentication
same class
CWE-290
other 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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • No affected product/version with evidence in the sources.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No CISA SSVC assessment.
  • 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-2026-80349 is "TarsWeb decides whether a request comes from a trusted local caller using a…", rated Critical. Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.8 describes technical severity. 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.