panel: Improper Access Control
CVE-2026-34358 is a high-severity improper access control vulnerability in panel from Ctrlpanel-gg, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected panel versions: < 1.2.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.3% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of panel you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ctrlpanel-gg | panel | < 1.2.0 | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- NoneAvailability is not affected.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
CtrlPanel is open-source billing software for hosting providers. Versions 1.1.1 and prior contains a broken access control vulnerability where multiple admin controllers enforce permission checks on form display methods but omit equivalent checks on the corresponding write methods, allowing any authenticated user to bypass RBAC via direct POST/PATCH requests. Controllers missing checks on write methods store() and update() include ApplicationApiController (admin.api.write), CouponController (admin.coupons.write), PartnerController (admin.partners.write), ShopProductController (admin.store.write), UsefulLinkController (admin.useful_links.write), and VoucherController (admin.voucher.write); ProductController (admin.products.edit), ServerController (write/change_owner/change_identifier), and UserController (write/change_email/change_credits/change_username/change_password/change_role/change_referral/change_ptero/change_serverlimit) are missing checks on update() only, and ActivityLogController exposed empty stub store()/update() methods that silently accepted any request. An authenticated attacker without admin write privileges can issue API credentials, generate unlimited coupons and vouchers, assign arbitrary partner commission and discount rates, alter shop product pricing and limits, reassign server ownership or identifiers, and modify user accounts including roles, credits, passwords, and linked Pterodactyl IDs to achieve full privilege escalation, as well as abuse logBackIn() without the login_as permission to interfere with admin impersonation sessions. This issue has been fixed in version 1.2.0.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Access Control
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- Compartmentalize the system to have safe areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in panel
- 8.7 High severity
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 8.1 High severity
Recent Improper Access Control vulnerabilities
- 7.3 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 9.9 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.5 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.