Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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-2026-26265 is a high-severity Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) vulnerability in Discourse Discourse. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 18th 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-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-26265 is an insecure direct object reference (IDOR) vulnerability in Discourse, an open source discussion platform. It affects versions prior to 2025.12.2, 2026.1.1, and 2026.2.0, specifically in the `DirectoryItemsController#index` endpoint. The flaw arises because the `user_field_ids` parameter accepts arbitrary user field IDs without authorization checks, bypassing visibility restrictions like `show_on_profile` or `show_on_user_card` that are enforced elsewhere, such as in `UserCardSerializer` via `Guardian#allowed_user_field_ids`. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N) and is linked to CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization) and CWE-639 (Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key).
Any user, including anonymous users, can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low complexity and no privileges required. By sending a GET request to `/directory_items.json?period=all&user_field_ids=<id>` with any private field ID, an attacker can retrieve that field's value for every user in the directory response. This enables bulk exfiltration of sensitive private user data, such as phone numbers, addresses, or other custom fields configured by admins as non-public.
The GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-crxf-p6jm-vpgw) details patches in Discourse versions 2025.12.2, 2026.1.1, and 2026.2.0, which filter `user_field_ids` against `UserField.public_fields` for non-staff users before building the custom field map. As workarounds, site administrators can remove sensitive data from private user fields or disable the user directory via the `enable_user_directory` site setting.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8859
Vulnerability Data
Discourse is an open source discussion platform. Prior to versions 2025.12.2, 2026.1.1, and 2026.2.0, an IDOR vulnerability in the directory items endpoint allows any user, including anonymous users, to retrieve private user field values for all users in the directory.…
more
The `user_field_ids` parameter in `DirectoryItemsController#index` accepts arbitrary user field IDs without authorization checks, bypassing the visibility restrictions (`show_on_profile` / `show_on_user_card`) that are enforced elsewhere (e.g., `UserCardSerializer` via `Guardian#allowed_user_field_ids`). An attacker can request `GET /directory_items.json?period=all&user_field_ids=<id>` with any private field ID and receive that field's value for every user in the directory response. This enables bulk exfiltration of private user data such as phone numbers, addresses, or other sensitive custom fields that admins have explicitly configured as non-public. The issue is patched in versions 2025.12.2, 2026.1.1, and 2026.2.0 by filtering `user_field_ids` against `UserField.public_fields` for non-staff users before building the custom field map. As a workaround, site administrators can remove sensitive data from private user fields, or disable the user directory via the `enable_user_directory` site setting.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 5 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires correct enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally preventing incorrect checks.
AC-24 ensures access-control decisions are made and applied consistently, reducing the chance of an incorrect authorization result.
A reference monitor that is always invoked and tamper-proof forces every authorization decision through a verified, correct path.
Least-privilege assignments shrink the set of authorizations that must be checked correctly, limiting exposure to flawed checks.
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.
Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.
Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.
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.
Security testing can detect missing authorization checks but does not prevent the weakness in production.
Information access restriction explicitly enforces that users may only retrieve data they are authorized to see, directly addressing user-controlled key bypass.
Requiring consistency between access rights and classification plus formal approval steps ensures that the authorization logic correctly distinguishes between entities that should and should not be granted access.
Enforcing policy-driven approval and role-change reviews stops incorrect or stale authorization decisions from remaining in effect after job changes or terminations.
Privileged access rights control restricts what data each user may access, mitigating direct object reference attacks.
Secure development lifecycle includes authorization design but does not itself implement runtime access checks.
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` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248581 OL 8 must require users to provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-863
- V-252656 The OL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-863
RHEL 7 (1 rule)
- V-204430 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must re-authenticate for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-863
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-251712 The RHEL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-863