Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-30956 is a critical-severity Improper Authorization (CWE-285) vulnerability in Hackerbay Oneuptime. Its CVSS base score is 9.9 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 40th 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-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-2026-30956 is an authorization bypass and tenant isolation vulnerability affecting OneUptime, an open-source solution for monitoring and managing online services. In versions 10.0.20 and earlier, the server trusts client-supplied headers, specifically a forged "is-multi-tenant-query" header combined with a controlled "projectid" header. This skips internal permission checks in the BasePermission component and disables tenant scoping, leading to improper access control (CWE-285) and missing authorization (CWE-862). The issue has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.9 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).
A low-privileged user within OneUptime can exploit this remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By crafting and sending the malicious headers, the attacker bypasses tenant boundaries to access project data from other tenants, read sensitive User fields through nested relations, leak plaintext resetPasswordToken values, reset victims' passwords, and achieve full account takeover. This enables cross-tenant data exposure and complete compromise of targeted accounts.
The vulnerability is fixed in OneUptime version 10.0.21, as detailed in the project's GitHub release notes (https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/releases/tag/10.0.21) and security advisory (https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/security/advisories/GHSA-r5v6-2599-9g3m). Security practitioners should upgrade to 10.0.21 or later to mitigate the risks.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10559
Vulnerability Data
OneUptime is a solution for monitoring and managing online services. Prior to 10.0.21, a low‑privileged user can bypass authorization and tenant isolation in OneUptime v10.0.20 and earlier by sending a forged is-multi-tenant-query header together with a controlled projectid header. Because…
more
the server trusts this client-supplied header, internal permission checks in BasePermission are skipped and tenant scoping is disabled. This allows attackers to access project data belonging to other tenants, read sensitive User fields via nested relations, leak plaintext resetPasswordToken, and reset the victim’s password and fully take over the account. This results in cross‑tenant data exposure and full account takeover. This vulnerability is fixed in 10.0.21.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 11 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Mandates that access-control decisions are made and applied to each request before access occurs.
Requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that performs authorization checks.
Directly requires enforcement of approved authorizations for every access request, stopping improper or missing checks.
Limits granted privileges so that even a bypassed check affects fewer resources.
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.
Explicitly requires defining, enforcing, and reviewing authorizations and least privilege, directly preventing missing authorization checks.
Secure SDLC practices catch and eliminate most authorization defects before release, yet a single broad outcome cannot address every design, role, and runtime facet of CWE-285.
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities and access-request workflows that can support downstream authorization decisions, yet does nothing to enforce or verify authorization checks inside a product, leaving CWE-285 fully unaddressed by this control alone.
Network segmentation/zero-trust limits external reachability (partial prevention of exploitation) but leaves application-level authorization logic untouched, so the CWE remains fully introducible and only one facet of its risk is addressed.
PR.PS-05 blocks unauthorized binaries/DNS while CWE-285 is an in-product authorization-check defect, so the control neither prevents the weakness nor removes any of its risk.
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.
Granular, policy-driven assignment of permissions and dynamic enforcement of those permissions prevent the incorrect or missing authorization decisions that lead to improper authorization flaws.
By requiring documented authorization rules and periodic policy reviews, the control makes it less likely that authorization decisions will be omitted or implemented inconsistently across applications.
Mapping access rights to information classification and business requirements forces correct enforcement of authorization decisions, blocking the incorrect authorization weakness at the policy and implementation stage.
Mandatory authorization checks and central records of granted rights ensure that every access attempt is preceded by an explicit decision rather than relying on missing checks.
Segregating the approval of access rights from their implementation provides an independent check that reduces the impact of missing authorization checks in the resulting system configuration.
Independent reviewers evaluate whether authorization logic matches policy, thereby reducing the window in which incorrect or missing authorization checks remain in production.
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-252656 The OL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285, CWE-862
- V-248581 OL 8 must require users to provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285, CWE-862
RHEL 7 (3 rules)
- V-251704 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285, CWE-862
- V-204429 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285, CWE-862
- V-204430 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must re-authenticate for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-251712 The RHEL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285