Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-11430 is a medium-severity Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm (CWE-303) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique External Remote Services (T1133); ranked at the 41th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-54601
Vulnerability Data
Grav CMS's scheduler-webhook plugin contains an authentication bypass in the webhook token check. When the webhook feature is enabled but no webhookToken is configured, a compound conditional short-circuits and skips token validation, so an unauthenticated remote attacker who can reach…
more
POST /scheduler/webhook can trigger the operator's already-configured scheduled jobs by sending a single request. The primitive is triggering-existing-jobs, not attacker-chosen command execution: the attacker controls when the jobs run and which one runs (via ?job=), but does not control what the jobs do. Code execution follows only when the operator has configured a job that shells out, and even then the attacker controls timing rather than payload. Not a default-install issue: reaching the endpoint requires the separate scheduler-webhook GPM plugin to be installed, scheduler.modern.webhook.enabled to be true (default false), and no webhookToken to be configured; a stock Grav or Grav-Admin install exposes nothing here.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly uncovers incorrect implementations of required authentication algorithms.
Requiring documented development processes, standards, and tools reduces the chance that an established authentication algorithm is coded incorrectly.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require correct implementation of authentication algorithms.
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.
Secure authentication control directly requires correct implementation of authentication algorithms.
Security testing can detect flawed authentication implementations but does not prevent them by itself.
Cryptography control addresses proper use of authentication algorithms but is broader than authentication alone.
Secure development lifecycle includes verification steps that can catch incorrect authentication implementations.
Application security requirements can specify correct authentication algorithm use but do not guarantee correct implementation.
Secure coding practices reduce the likelihood of incorrect authentication algorithm implementation.