CVE-2026-92591
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-92591 is a high-severity Failing Open (CWE-636) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 15th 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 CP-12 (Safe Mode) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-81291
Vulnerability Data
Craft CMS 5.0.0 through 5.10.12 treats a database connection failure as meaning that Craft is not installed, which makes anonymous installer actions — including install/validate-site — reachable on an installed production site whenever PHP remains available but the configured MySQL…
more
endpoint does not. The action accepts a site name, serializes it through Site::getName(), and expands ${NAME} expressions using App::env(). An unauthenticated attacker who obtained a guest session cookie and matching CSRF token before the outage and whose session remains valid during it can submit a predictable variable name (for example Craft's conventional CRAFT_SECURITY_KEY) and receive its value, disclosing Craft secrets, process environment variables, $_SERVER entries, or PHP constants such as the security key, database credentials, or API keys. The issue requires an independently occurring database outage; the vulnerability itself provides no way to induce it. Fixed in 5.10.13.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.2.1V7.4.1V8.3.3V10.3.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
CP-12 forces entry into a safe mode on detected conditions, limiting exposure but not covering every failure path.
SA-8 requires application of engineering principles that include fail-secure design, reducing the likelihood the weakness is introduced.
SC-24 directly requires the system to fail to a known state that preserves security properties, structurally stopping fallback to a less-secure mode.
SI-17 mandates explicit fail-safe procedures that activate on indicated failures, preventing the insecure fallback behavior.
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.
Least-privilege policy and enforcement directly counters the permissive-access fallback example in the CWE.
Hardened baselines and configuration management reduce the chance that error paths default to insecure settings.
Secure-development practices explicitly include designing error and failure handling to remain in a secure state.