Skip to main content

Coze Studio EUVDEUVD-2026-81051

| CVE-2026-92788 HIGH
Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863)
2026-09-16 VulnCheck GHSA-77xw-26q5-6wjg
8.7
CVSS 4.0 · Vendor: VulnCheck
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Authenticate with low-privilege account
  2. Delivery
    Create workflow with SQL customization node
  3. Exploit
    Enumerate predictable cross-workspace table IDs
  4. Execution
    Execute SQL against other tenant's memory DB
  5. Impact
    Read/insert/delete cross-tenant data

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Authorization logic validation
MITRE ATT&CK

1 technique across 1 tactic: Privilege Escalation

The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up.

Exploitation Conditions

Requires an authenticated Coze Studio account (PR:L) on a multi-tenant/multi-workspace deployment and use of the workflow SQL customization node feature. The attacker must enumerate predictable table identifiers belonging to other workspaces; exploitation succeeds because the workflow SQL node never validates that referenced table names belong to the caller's workspace. Limiting factors: valid low-privilege credentials are needed, the target must run Coze Studio 0.5.1 or earlier with multiple workspaces/tenants sharing the memory-database backend, and impact is confined to other workspaces' memory databases (read/insert/delete). Single-tenant or single-workspace deployments have little to steal via this path.

Impact

This is a genuine authenticated cross-tenant authorization flaw (CWE-863), not a high-CVSS-but-low-risk item, though its severity is bounded by prerequisites. The vendor CVSS 4.0 vector (AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H, 8.7) indicates a network-reachable, low-complexity attack requiring only low-privilege authentication (PR:L) - i.e. any valid Coze Studio account. Full CIA impact on the vulnerable system is asserted because an attacker can read, insert, AND delete data in other workspaces' memory databases. No EPSS score, no CISA KEV listing, and no public exploit code are provided, so exploitation status is 'no public exploit identified at time of analysis'; the absence of EPSS/KEV suggests no confirmed widespread exploitation, consistent with a self-hosted niche product recently disclosed by VulnCheck. Note VulnCheck kept subsequent-system metrics at N (SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) even though this is fundamentally a cross-tenant/multi-workspace boundary violation - arguably a scope-changing condition; this is a defensible but conservative scoping choice. Key limiter: the attacker must first hold an authenticated account and must enumerate predictable table identifiers, so it is a privilege-escalation-across-tenants issue rather than a fully unauthenticated internet-facing RCE.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker who registers or already holds a low-privilege account on a multi-tenant Coze Studio instance creates a workflow containing a SQL customization node and references table identifiers belonging to another workspace. Because table names are predictable and never checked against the caller's workspace, the attacker enumerates other tenants' memory-database tables and runs SELECT/INSERT/DELETE statements against them, reading or destroying other customers' data. No public proof-of-concept is referenced, but the root-cause code paths (database_impl.go and mysql.go) are cited in the advisory.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
No patch listed yet 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Sep 16, 2026

Improper authorization in Coze Studio through 0.5.1 lets an authenticated user (CVSS PR:L) abuse the workflow SQL customization node to reach memory-database tables belonging to other workspaces, because referenced table names are never validated against the caller's own workspace. By enumerating predictable table identifiers, the attacker can read, insert, or delete data in another tenant's memory database, yielding high confidentiality and integrity impact within the affected multi-tenant deployment (our assessment rates this CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N). Exploitation requires valid low-privilege credentials and a deployment hosting multiple workspaces on a shared memory-database backend; single-tenant installations have little to expose via this path. No public exploit code was identified at time of analysis, and there is no KEV confirmation of active exploitation.

RemediationAI

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis: the available references are a GitHub issue (https://github.com/coze-dev/coze-studio/issues/2710), repository source links, and a VulnCheck advisory, none of which name a fixed release, so administrators should track issue 2710 and the repository for a patched version before upgrading. Until a fix lands, the most effective compensating control is architectural segregation: give each workspace its own memory-database backend (separate MySQL schema or separate database credentials) so that a table name outside the caller's scope cannot resolve at all - the trade-off is increased operational overhead and connection-pool sprawl on large multi-tenant installs. A second option is to disable or restrict the workflow SQL customization node to trusted administrator accounts only via feature-flag or role gating, which defeats this attack but removes a legitimate authoring capability from normal users and may break existing workflows that depend on it. Where the SQL node must remain available, enforce a database-level allowlist by binding each workspace's credentials to only its own tables (e.g., per-workspace grants rather than a shared privileged account), accepting that this requires schema-naming discipline and credential management. Complement these with detection: alert on SQL executed through workflow nodes that references table identifiers outside the caller's workspace, and treat the shared memory database as untrusted data that must not be relied on for durable or cross-workspace integrity. Because exploitation is authenticated and cross-tenant, also review memory-database contents for unauthorized inserts or deletions and rotate any secrets or tokens that may have been stored there.

Affected VersionsENISA

coze-studio 0 ≤0.5.1

Affected Packages

euvd coze_studio no fix

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 1 package in euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

The root cause is CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization): Coze Studio's workflow SQL customization node accepts user-supplied SQL and resolves table names in the shared memory-database layer without verifying that each referenced table belongs to the caller's workspace. The referenced source links point to backend/domain/memory/database/service/database_impl.go (lines ~2203-2250) and backend/infra/rdb/impl/rdb/mysql.go (lines ~825-830), indicating the memory database is implemented on top of a relational backend (MySQL) where table identifiers follow a predictable naming scheme. That predictability is what turns a missing ownership check into a cross-tenant data access primitive: the attacker does not need a name leak, only the ability to construct the identifier pattern. Because the workflow SQL node is a legitimate product feature rather than a hidden endpoint, the flaw is one of scoping rather than of reachability, and the affected component set maps to CPE cpe:2.3:a:coze-dev:coze-studio:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* (all 0.x releases up to and including 0.5.1 per EUVD). Note the multi-source scoring divergence: the supplied CVSS 4.0 vector (8.7, with VC:H/VI:H/VA:H and subsequent-system metrics not applicable) overstates availability impact relative to our assessed CVSS 3.1 vector, which records no availability effect (A:N) because the primitive targets logical data in other workspaces' memory databases rather than service uptime.

Know when Coze Studio gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (VulnCheck) PRIMARY 8.7 HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
vuln.today AI 8.1 HIGH

Network, low-complexity, authenticated (PR:L) attacker reads and modifies (insert/delete=integrity) cross-workspace data; C:H/I:H, A:N as no service-level denial is asserted; S:U per vendor scoping.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Primary rating from Vendor (VulnCheck).

CVSS VectorVendor: VulnCheck

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Requirements
None
Privileges Required
Low
User Interaction
None
Vulnerable system: Confidentiality
High
Vulnerable system: Integrity
High
Vulnerable system: Availability
High
Subsequent system: Confidentiality
None
Subsequent system: Integrity
None
Subsequent system: Availability
None

DescriptionCVE.org

Coze Studio through 0.5.1 fails to validate that table names in workflow SQL customization nodes belong to the caller's workspace. Authenticated attackers can enumerate predictable table identifiers and execute SQL statements against other workspaces' memory databases to read, insert, or delete data.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

Coze Studio deployments at version 0.5.1 and earlier contain an authorization flaw that allows any user holding a valid low-privilege account to reach memory-database tables belonging to other workspaces, and to read, insert, or delete that data, when multiple workspaces share a common backend. Because no vendor patch is available and no public exploit code was identified at time of analysis, the exposure is limited to multi-tenant installations, but in those environments a single ordinary user account can quietly cross tenant boundaries and compromise the confidentiality and integrity of another team's data. Leadership should care because this concentrates risk precisely in the shared, multi-team deployments most enterprises operate, and the impact is data corruption or leakage rather than a service outage.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis. Interim mitigations: disable or restrict the workflow SQL customization node; require a distinct database credential and schema per workspace on the memory-database backend; apply least-privilege grants that block cross-workspace read, insert, and delete operations; minimize the number of users holding authenticated accounts; and monitor or alert on cross-tenant table enumeration and anomalous access patterns.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 79% exploitable
Prevalence
Medium
ByteDance open-source LLM-agent builder, self-hosted; growing adoption but niche footprint
Data Quality
6 sources
Confidence: High

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity HIGH
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available No
Active threat No
Deciding rule
HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision
Scheduled
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
No
Human Impact
High
Technical Impact
Total

Priority Score

44
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +44
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy