Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33318 is a high-severity Improper Access Control (CWE-284) vulnerability in Actualbudget Actual. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 39th 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-2026-33318 is a privilege escalation vulnerability affecting Actual, a local-first personal finance tool, in versions prior to 26.4.0. The issue impacts multiuser servers that have been migrated from password authentication to OpenID Connect, where an inactive password authentication row for an anonymous admin account persists. It stems from three chained weaknesses: a missing authorization check on the POST /account/change-password endpoint, which allows any authenticated session to overwrite a password hash; the failure to remove the orphaned password auth row during migration; and the login endpoint's acceptance of a client-supplied loginMethod parameter, which bypasses the server's active authentication configuration. These combine into a sequential exploit chain rated at CVSS 3.1 score 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and mapped to CWE-284 (Improper Access Control) and CWE-862 (Missing Authorization), with the root cause being the lack of authorization on the change-password endpoint.
Any authenticated user, including those with only a BASIC role, can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. The attacker first uses their existing session to POST to /account/change-password and overwrite the password hash of the orphaned admin account with a known value. They then authenticate via the login endpoint by supplying loginMethod="password" and the known password, bypassing OpenID Connect and gaining access as the anonymous admin account with ADMIN privileges. This grants high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact, enabling full administrative control over the server.
Advisories from the Actual Budget release notes and GitHub security advisory GHSA-prp4-2f49-fcgp confirm that version 26.4.0 resolves the vulnerability by addressing the missing authorization check and related issues in the exploit chain. Security practitioners should upgrade affected Actual servers to version 26.4.0 or later, particularly those using multiuser mode post-migration to OpenID Connect, and review access logs for signs of exploitation such as unauthorized change-password requests or anomalous password-based logins.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25380
Vulnerability Data
Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to version 26.4.0, any authenticated user (including `BASIC` role) can escalate to `ADMIN` on servers migrated from password authentication to OpenID Connect. Three weaknesses combine: `POST /account/change-password` has no authorization check, allowing…
more
any session to overwrite the password hash; the inactive password `auth` row is never removed on migration; and the login endpoint accepts a client-supplied `loginMethod` that bypasses the server's active auth configuration. Together these allow an attacker to set a known password and authenticate as the anonymous admin account created during the multiuser migration. The three weaknesses form a single, sequential exploit chain — none produces privilege escalation on its own. Missing authorization on POST /change-password allows overwriting a password hash, but only matters if there is an orphaned row to target. Orphaned password row persisting after migration provides the target row, but is harmless without the ability to authenticate using it. Client-controlled loginMethod: "password" allows forcing password-based auth, but is useless without a known hash established by step 1. All three must be chained in sequence to achieve the impact. No single weakness independently results in privilege escalation. The single root cause is the missing authorization check on /change-password; the other two are preconditions that make it exploitable. Version 26.4.0 contains a fix.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 13 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
V10.3.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces approved authorizations for logical access, stopping unauthorized actors from reaching resources.
AC-24 mandates that access control decisions are applied to each request, preventing bypass of authorization logic.
AC-25 requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that ensures authorization checks cannot be omitted.
Enforces flow-control policies that restrict information movement between subjects and objects.
Documents duties and assigns access so that no single account can bypass intended restrictions.
Limits each account to the minimum privileges needed, reducing the chance of unauthorized access.
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.
Hardened baselines and deviation monitoring directly eliminate most configuration-induced access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also encompasses code-level and design flaws outside the scope of configuration management alone.
Secure SDLC practices catch most access-control defects during design/coding/testing (mostly), yet leave residual risk from runtime configuration, architecture, and operational controls (partial).
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities/credentials that support but do not implement access-control decisions, so it only partially prevents CWE-284 in either direction.
Authentication directly blocks unauthenticated actors (partial prevention of CWE-284) but leaves authorization logic, policy enforcement, and role checks untouched, so the control neither eliminates nor fully mitigates the broader weakness.
PR.DS-01 encryption mitigates impact of failed access checks on stored data but neither implements nor constrains access-control logic itself.
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.
Defining and enforcing explicit access rights and restrictions for each entity directly stops the assignment of permissions that exceed what is required, eliminating the root condition that allows improper access control.
Formal authorization, role-based provisioning, and timely revocation of access rights directly stop the creation of accounts or permissions that exceed what the business actually needs.
By enforcing explicit rules on which identities or groups may perform read, write, delete or execute operations and by denying anonymous access to sensitive data, the control directly stops the creation of overly permissive or missing access-control checks.
Requiring one-to-one mapping of identities to entities and timely removal of unused identities directly stops attackers from leveraging stale or shared accounts to bypass access restrictions.
By explicitly transferring security roles and responsibilities when personnel change jobs or leave, the control reduces the chance that former employees retain access rights they no longer need, thereby limiting improper access control.
Physical entry controls enforce explicit authorization and authentication at every access point, directly stopping unauthorized actors from reaching information-processing assets.
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 (4 rules)
- V-248581 OL 8 must require users to provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
- V-248597 There must be no "shosts.equiv" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-248598 There must be no ".shosts" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271758 OL 9 file systems must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
- V-271757 OL 9 file systems must not contain shosts.equiv files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 7 (4 rules)
- V-251704 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents 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-862
- V-204606 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 8 (2 rules)
- V-230283 There must be no shosts.equiv files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-230284 There must be no .shosts files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284