Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-5652 is a critical-severity Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) vulnerability in Craftycontrol Crafty Controller. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 37th 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-3 (Access Enforcement) — 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-2026-5652 is an insecure direct object reference (IDOR) vulnerability, mapped to CWE-639, in the Users API component of Crafty Controller. Published on 2026-04-21T17:16:57.793, it arises from improper API permissions validation, allowing unauthorized access to user modification actions. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.0 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L), indicating critical severity due to its network accessibility, low attack complexity, and significant impacts.
A remote, authenticated attacker with high privileges can exploit this flaw without user interaction. By leveraging the IDOR in the Users API, the attacker can perform unauthorized user modification actions, potentially compromising confidentiality and integrity of user data at a high level, with a low impact on availability, and scope crossing into changed components.
Advisories and further details, including potential patches, are documented in the Crafty Controller GitLab repository work item at https://gitlab.com/crafty-controller/crafty-4/-/work_items/705.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-24199
Vulnerability Data
An insecure direct object reference vulnerability in the Users API component of Crafty Controller allows a remote, authenticated attacker to perform user modification actions via improper API permissions validation.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforcing approved authorizations on every access request structurally stops a user-controlled key from reaching another user's data.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions on each request blocks unauthorized key-driven access.
Least-privilege restrictions limit the scope of data reachable even if a key check is bypassed.
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.
Access control policy directly requires enforcement of authorization rules that prevent unauthorized access via manipulated keys.
Managing access rights includes ensuring users can only access their own records and not bypass authorization by altering identifiers.
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.
Application security requirements can mandate authorization controls, yet the control itself is a requirements statement rather than an implemented safeguard.
Secure coding practices reduce the likelihood of missing authorization checks but do not guarantee their presence at runtime.