CVE-2023-41326
Glpi-Project Glpi 9.5.0 – 10.0.10
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-41326 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Glpi-Project Glpi. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
GLPI, an open-source IT asset and service management platform, contains an improper access control flaw in its Kanban feature. Any authenticated user, regardless of assigned profile, can manipulate the component to modify arbitrary user fields, ultimately allowing account takeover. The issue is tracked as CVE-2023-41326 with a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.1 and is also associated with CWE-269.
An attacker who already possesses valid credentials can exploit the Kanban interface to alter another user’s account details, including password or email fields, thereby hijacking the target account without further interaction from the victim. The attack requires only low-privilege network access and succeeds against any profile because the Kanban endpoint fails to enforce proper authorization checks on user-field modifications.
The project’s security advisories direct administrators to upgrade to GLPI 10.0.10, the release that contains the fix; no workarounds are documented. The associated EPSS score rose from lower values to a peak of 0.0670 before receding to its current level of 0.0435, indicating a modest but noticeable increase in exploitation interest after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-45839
Vulnerability Data
GLPI stands for Gestionnaire Libre de Parc Informatique is a Free Asset and IT Management Software package, that provides ITIL Service Desk features, licenses tracking and software auditing. A logged user from any profile can hijack the Kanban feature to…
more
alter any user field, and end-up with stealing its account. Users are advised to upgrade to version 10.0.10. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Policy addresses roles, responsibilities, and privilege management to prevent improper privilege assignments.
Access supervision ensures privileges are assigned and managed without improper escalation or retention.
Assigning group/role memberships and access authorizations (privileges) while reviewing accounts addresses improper privilege management.
Enforces proper privilege management by requiring all decisions through the verified reference monitor.
By mandating division of duties across roles, the control enforces proper privilege management and prevents a single entity from controlling an entire sensitive process.
Implements core proper privilege management by restricting to only required rights.
Policy requires training on privilege management and least privilege, making it harder to exploit improper privilege management weaknesses.
Training covers proper privilege management practices, making incorrect privilege assignments less likely.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.5.15 directly mandates determining access requirements, defining/enforcing topic-specific access control policy, assigning rights/restrictions by entity/role, consistency with classification, need-to-know, privileged access restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, and dynamic rules — which stops most improper privilege management from being exploitable; bounded remainder is flawed implementation of those rules (e.g. incorrect mapping or enforcement bugs).
A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, modification and timely revocation of access rights (including for role changes, termination and privilege levels), which stops most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw exists; the bounded remainder is flaws in the underlying enforcement mechanism itself (e.g. AC-3/A.8.3)
Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.
Logging every use of privileges and protecting those records makes it harder for an attacker who has obtained elevated rights to operate without leaving evidence.
A.8.2 directly controls the identification, allocation, review, expiry, temporary use, and separation of privileged rights per policy, which prevents most improper privilege management (CWE-269) by design; the bounded remainder is flawed tracking/checking logic inside the product's own enforcement code (the AC-3 slice of 269).
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles including least privilege, default deny, fail securely, defence in depth, security architecture integration, hardening, and zero-trust verification of every request; these directly stop most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw remains, with a bounded remainder (e.g. certain legacy or safety-overridden controls).
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.