CVE-2026-100619
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-100619 is a high-severity Incorrect Privilege Assignment (CWE-266) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Valid Accounts (T1078); ranked at the 24th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-2 (Account Management) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-87714
Vulnerability Data
Capgo (capgo.app) blocks direct user inserts into the public.manifest table with a RESTRICTIVE row-level security policy, but that restriction can be bypassed indirectly. A principal holding an app-scoped upload/write/all API key (upload+ rights) or an authenticated user with write+ rights…
more
on an app can update public.app_versions.manifest on a version whose storage_provider is 'r2-direct', which is not covered by the bundle content-lock check. The on_version_update async worker trusts record.manifest and, using the service-role Supabase client, inserts the attacker-controlled file_name, file_hash, and s3_path into public.manifest before clearing app_versions.manifest. When a channel points to the crafted version, the /updates endpoint returns the service-role-created manifest entry as a client-facing download_url, enabling OTA manifest poisoning through a trusted async worker path. All versions are affected; no patch was available at the time of publication.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 8 hardening rules · 6 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Account management defines and authorizes the exact privileges granted to each account or role.
Enforces only the authorizations that were assigned, so correct assignment is a prerequisite.
Separation of duties constrains which privilege combinations may be assigned to any actor.
Least privilege directly requires that only the minimal necessary privileges are assigned to each actor.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Directly enforces least-privilege policy definition, management, and review that prevents incorrect privilege assignments.
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 requires determining access needs, defining/enforcing topic-specific access control policy and rules (including need-to-know, privilege restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, role-based mapping, and consistency with classification), which stops most incorrect privilege assignments from being exploitable; the bounded remainder is incorrect assignments that arise from flawed implementation of those rules rather than from their absence.
A.5.18's provisioning, review, revocation and SoD rules (esp. a,b,c,f,i,j) directly stop most incorrect privilege assignments from being granted or persisting, with a bounded remainder in flawed implementation of the authorization step itself (see 5.9/5.15 dependency)
A.8.2 directly controls the identification, allocation, review, expiry, and temporary nature of privileged rights per policy, which stops most incorrect assignments from creating an exploitable sphere of control; the bounded remainder is incorrect privilege semantics inside code that the authorization process never sees.
Information-access-restriction mechanisms enforce the correct privilege boundaries once assignment rules are defined.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248551 A sticky bit must be set on all OL 8 public directories to prevent unauthorized and unintended information transferred via shared system resources. blocks CWE-266
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271779 OL 9 must be configured so that a sticky bit must be set on all public directories. blocks CWE-266
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230243 A sticky bit must be set on all RHEL 8 public directories to prevent unauthorized and unintended information transferred via shared system resources. blocks CWE-266
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257929 A sticky bit must be set on all RHEL 9 public directories. blocks CWE-266
Ubuntu 22.04 (2 rules)
- V-260513 Ubuntu 22.04 LTS must set a sticky bit on all public directories to prevent unauthorized and unintended information transferred via shared system resources. blocks CWE-266
- V-260559 Ubuntu 22.04 LTS must ensure only users who need access to security functions are part of sudo group. blocks CWE-266
Ubuntu 24.04 (2 rules)
- V-270748 Ubuntu 24.04 LTS must ensure only users who need access to security functions are part of sudo group. blocks CWE-266
- V-270750 Ubuntu 24.04 LTS must set a sticky bit on all public directories to prevent unauthorized and unintended information transferred via shared system resources. blocks CWE-266