NVD / CVE Program· CNA EEF

CVE-2026-48599: Authorization bypass via path binding override in elixir-grpc/grpc HTTP transcoding

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 30/100)

The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.33% (FIRST EPSS).
Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
Fixed version: elixir-grpc grpc 1.0.0, 33b6a095dbc91c6dee3c7b90893d7d74952e82e4.

Low priority for now. Upgrade to elixir-grpc grpc 1.0.0, 33b6a095dbc91c6dee3c7b90893d7d74952e82e4 or later.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc: from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

HighCVSS 7.6 · v4.0—No exploit Fix available

Broken access control (IDOR)

Published: Jun 15, 2026
Updated: Oct 25, 2026
EPSS: 0.3% · 27th percentile
CWE: CWE-639

Report tools

JSON

Action score

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS: 30 / 40 · 7.6 / 10
CISA KEV: 0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS: 0 / 30 · 0.3%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation: proof of concept
Automatable: no
Technical impact: total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD: —
CNA · EEF: 7.6; NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
No public exploit code on record
A fix has been released

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

—

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (EEF). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

elixir-grpc grpc
- 0.8.0 and later · before 1.0.0affected · semver
- 8aaf3d3a8c4c7b08ac65e9c6f254e0d24da1d048 and later · before 33b6a095dbc91c6dee3c7b90893d7d74952e82e4affected · git

Package-level exposure

OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.

Ecosystem	Package	Affected range	Fix
Hex	grpc	from 0.8.0 · before 1.0.0	1.0.0

Same product

elixir-grpc: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

CVE-2026-48853Remote code execution and denial of service via unsafe Erlang term deserialization in elixir-grpc/grpc
36Monitor
CVE-2026-53430grpc gzip decompression bomb in GRPC.Compressor.Gzip.decompress/1
34Monitor
CVE-2026-48854Unbounded request body accumulation causes memory exhaustion in elixir-grpc/grpc
34Monitor

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

Product / package	Fixed version	Source
elixir-grpc grpc	1.0.0	Vendor (CNA)
elixir-grpc grpc	33b6a095dbc91c6dee3c7b90893d7d74952e82e4	Vendor (CNA)
Hex:grpc	1.0.0	Package registry (OSV)

Exploit status

No known public exploit

No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

No dated events beyond publication.

EPSS, last 120 days

FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

Credits

All researchers

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

Peter Ullrichfinder
Paulo Valenteremediation developer
Jonatan Männchen / EEFanalyst

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

No nightly-computed relations.

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

—

Bug bounty scope

No known public program.

Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).

Technical details

Attack conditions

Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
A low-privileged account is enough.
No user action is required.
No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: X

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

CVSS vector

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

nvd-secondary

Root cause

The endpoint fetches the record by the ID sent in the request, but never checks whether the record belongs to the requesting user.

The bug in code

The whole CWE-639 class

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

1const invoice = await Invoice.findById(req.params.id);
2res.json(invoice);

Fixed

1const invoice = await Invoice.findOne({
2  id: req.params.id,
3  ownerId: req.user.id,
4});
5if (!invoice) return res.sendStatus(404);
6res.json(invoice);

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.

Change log

Fix✗ → ✓Sep 28, 2026, 10:07 PM UTC

For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →

References

cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-48599.html

Show all references (4 more)

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records