Skip to content

CVE-2026-56776

Incorrect Authorization: Is CVE-2026-56776 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.4 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-863 · Incorrect Authorization
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

n8n before 1.123.55, 2.25.7, and 2.26.2 contains an authorization bypass in the POST /workflows/{workflowId}/test-runs/new endpoint, which authorizes access using the workflow:read scope instead of workflow:execute. An authenticated user with read-only access to a workflow can trigger a real evaluation test run, causing the workflow to execute via the internal workflow runner and resulting in unintended outbound API calls, data mutations, or other side effects in connected downstream systems. The issue primarily affects instances using the Evaluations feature where RBAC project roles grant workflow:read without workflow:execute.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-56776
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-56776/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-56776)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-56776"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-56776/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-56776"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-863 · Incorrect Authorization.