Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-27593 is a critical-severity Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password (CWE-640) vulnerability in Statamic Statamic. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Valid Accounts (T1078); ranked at the 38th 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 IA-12 (Identity Proofing) and IA-5 (Authenticator Management) — 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-2026-27593 affects Statamic, a Laravel and Git-powered content management system (CMS), specifically in its password reset feature. In versions prior to 6.3.3 and 5.73.10, an attacker can capture a user's password reset token and use it to reset the password on the victim's behalf. The issue stems from improper handling in the reset process and is mapped to CWE-640 (Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Identity), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N), indicating high severity due to network accessibility, low complexity, no required privileges, user interaction, changed scope, and high impact on confidentiality and integrity.
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability by knowing the email address of a valid account on the affected Statamic site. The attacker triggers or leverages the reset mechanism to obtain a token, which is delivered via email to the victim. If the legitimate user blindly clicks the link in this unsolicited email—without verifying the request—the attacker can then use the activated token to complete the password reset, gaining full unauthorized access to the account.
Mitigation is provided through patches in Statamic versions 6.3.3 and 5.73.10, as detailed in the project's GitHub releases and associated fix commits. Security practitioners should prioritize upgrading affected installations to these versions to prevent exploitation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8570
Vulnerability Data
Statmatic is a Laravel and Git powered content management system (CMS). Prior to versions 6.3.3 and 5.73.10, an attacker may leverage a vulnerability in the password reset feature to capture a user's token and reset the password on their behalf.…
more
The attacker must know the email address of a valid account on the site, and the actual user must blindly click the link in their email even though they didn't request the reset. This has been fixed in 6.3.3 and 5.73.10.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V7.4.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Identity proofing at appropriate assurance levels ensures forgotten-password recovery cannot succeed without strong verification of the user.
Authenticator management requires secure distribution, reset, and verification procedures that directly address weak password recovery flows.
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.
Credential lifecycle management directly includes password reset/recovery flows.
Identity proofing is the core control that prevents weak or bypassed recovery mechanisms.
Authentication policy covers strength/MFA but does not address recovery path weaknesses.
Secure SDLC reduces implementation flaws but is not specific to password-recovery design.
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.
Strong authentication-information lifecycle rules directly address weak password-recovery flows.
Secure-SDLC practices can embed strong recovery design, yet the control is broader than this single weakness.
Application-security requirements can mandate secure recovery flows, but the control covers many other requirements.
Secure-coding standards can prevent weak recovery implementations, yet the control is wider in scope.
Secure-authentication requirements include robust forgotten-password procedures.
Proper access-rights provisioning can limit who can trigger recovery, but does not fix the recovery mechanism itself.