Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-55076 is a high-severity Improper Authentication (CWE-287) vulnerability in Coder Coder. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 23th 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-2 (Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users)) and IA-5 (Authenticator Management) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-42129
Vulnerability Data
Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for…
more
example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
The OIDC callback flaw allows unauthenticated attackers to bypass email verification and take over cloud accounts (T1078.004) by exploiting a public-facing application (T1190).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
- 8 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
V6.4.4V6.5.4V6.5.5V6.5.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces proper identification and authentication of users, directly mitigating the flawed OIDC email_verified claim handling that allowed unauthenticated account takeover.
Requires secure management of authenticators and identity assertions, addressing the type-assertion failure that treated non-boolean email_verified claims as verified.
Mandates validation of all input data, which would have caught the non-boolean email_verified claim and prevented the fail-open logic.
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.
PR.AA-03 directly enforces authentication mechanisms that eliminate most improper-authentication defects, yet CWE-287 spans additional vectors (missing checks, flawed protocols, session handling) that one control does not fully close.
PR.AA-04 directly enables verification of identity assertions (mostly preventing CWE-287 in that scope) yet leaves many other authentication failure modes unaddressed (only partial prevention overall).
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent type-conversion flaws via coding standards, reviews, and testing.
PR.AA-01 supplies and governs credentials/tokens that authentication relies on, removing some weak-credential cases, yet leaves verification logic, missing checks, and protocol flaws untouched.
PR.AA-02 ensures valid enrollment and unique credential binding, which reduces some improper-auth risks at issuance time but leaves runtime claim verification untouched, so each direction only partially addresses the other.
PR.PS-01 can enforce auth-related settings via hardened baselines and default reviews, blocking some config-based instances of CWE-287, yet leaves code-level auth flaws untouched so neither direction reaches mostly.
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.
Requiring authentication methods whose strength matches the sensitivity of the data and mandating multi-factor authentication directly blocks attempts to access resources without proving identity.
Verifying user identity before issuing replacement credentials and forcing changes after compromise reduces the likelihood that authentication bypass can be achieved through stolen or weak credentials.
Security testing can uncover type-conversion defects before release.
Mandating segregated approval and oversight for non-human identities reduces the chance that weak or orphaned credentials can be exploited for unauthorized authentication.
Requiring authentication mechanisms and technical parameters for secure connections ensures that network services verify user identity before granting access, preventing exploitation of missing or weak authentication.
Security requirements specified early and verified through testing drive the consistent implementation of authentication mechanisms, decreasing the likelihood that authentication steps are omitted or incorrectly applied.