Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/E:U/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-2026-13603 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Pretix (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Invalid Code Signature (T1036.001); ranked at the 34th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-40958
Vulnerability Data
The payment integration pretix-oppwa provides support for the payment providers VR Payment, Hobex, and potentially others based on Oppwa's technology. The integration of Oppwa, following their official documentation, includes a step where the user is redirected from the payment provider…
more
back to our system with a query parameter like ?resourcePath=/v1/checkouts/{checkoutId}/payment in the URL. Our system is then supposed to fetch the status of the transaction from the URL given by baseUrl + resourcePath. Our plugin pretix-oppwa did so insecurely by concatenating the parameter form the URL to the base domain of the API without further validation and, critically, without a / at the end of the baseUrl. Therefore, an attacker could inject a resourcePath argument in a way that causes pretix to call a different server instead. Since the request includes the access token (API key) of the Oppwa account, this would leak the access token, giving access to data contained in the payment provider's system. This is fixed with the release today by strictly validating the given API URL. After installing the update, we recommend asking your payment provider for a new access token and updating it in pretix.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
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).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20