FKIE_CVE-2026-48077

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-08-06 22:17 - Updated: 2026-09-08 20:51
Severity
5.3 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Summary
OpenReception's appointment booking software provides an end-to-end encrypted appointment booking platform. Prior to version 1.1.0, the GET handler at `/api/tenants/{id}/appointments/{appointmentId}` performs no authorization check before returning the appointment record. Any party who knows or obtains a valid appointment UUID receives the full row, including channel and agent IDs, time and timezone, status, and the AES-GCM ciphertext components (`encryptedPayload`, `iv`, `authTag`, `dataKey`). The same file's DELETE handler calls `checkPermission(locals, tenantId, true)` before allowing deletion. The intent is clear: appointment records are tenant-scoped and require authentication to access. The GET handler is missing the equivalent call. The middleware chain (`apiAuthHandle`, `authGuard`) does not compensate: API paths bypass `authGuard` entirely, and `apiAuthHandle` does not block requests to non-admin paths when no token is present. Version 1.1.0 patches the issue.
References
security-advisories@github.comhttps://github.com/open-reception/appointment-booking-software/commit/16474d96c591e246a103b9d6aa15ca30d436d11b
security-advisories@github.comhttps://github.com/open-reception/appointment-booking-software/security/advisories/GHSA-8547-9x2c-9vmf
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0https://github.com/open-reception/appointment-booking-software/security/advisories/GHSA-8547-9x2c-9vmf
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "product": "appointment-booking-software",
          "vendor": "open-reception",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "\u003c 1.1.0"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com"
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "OpenReception\u0027s appointment booking software provides an end-to-end encrypted appointment booking platform. Prior to version 1.1.0, the GET handler at `/api/tenants/{id}/appointments/{appointmentId}` performs no authorization check before returning the appointment record. Any party who knows or obtains a valid appointment UUID receives the full row, including channel and agent IDs, time and timezone, status, and the AES-GCM ciphertext components (`encryptedPayload`, `iv`, `authTag`, `dataKey`). The same file\u0027s DELETE handler calls `checkPermission(locals, tenantId, true)` before allowing deletion. The intent is clear: appointment records are tenant-scoped and require authentication to access. The GET handler is missing the equivalent call. The middleware chain (`apiAuthHandle`, `authGuard`) does not compensate: API paths bypass `authGuard` entirely, and `apiAuthHandle` does not block requests to non-admin paths when no token is present. Version 1.1.0 patches the issue."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-48077",
  "lastModified": "2026-09-08T20:51:43.490",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 5.3,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
          "integrityImpact": "NONE",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
        "impactScore": 1.4,
        "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2026-48077",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "poc"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "yes"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "partial"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-08-07T15:00:28.462761Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-08-06T22:17:10.267",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-reception/appointment-booking-software/commit/16474d96c591e246a103b9d6aa15ca30d436d11b"
    },
    {
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-reception/appointment-booking-software/security/advisories/GHSA-8547-9x2c-9vmf"
    },
    {
      "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-reception/appointment-booking-software/security/advisories/GHSA-8547-9x2c-9vmf"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
  "vulnStatus": "Deferred",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-862"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.