Skip to content

CVE-2026-9132

Missing Authorization: is CVE-2026-9132real, 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
6.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-862 · Missing Authorization
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Github

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

A missing authorization vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that allowed an authenticated user to read source code from private repositories they did not have access to. The Copilot pull request description diff summary endpoint accepted a cross-repository comparison range and rendered the resulting diff without verifying that the requesting user was authorized to view the target repository. Exploitation required an authenticated account on the instance with read access to at least one repository to use as the comparison base. This vulnerability affected all versions of GitHub Enterprise Server prior to 3.21 and was fixed in versions 3.17.17, 3.18.11, 3.19.8, and 3.20.4. This vulnerability was reported via the GitHub Bug Bounty program.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9132
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9132/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9132)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9132"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9132/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9132"></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?

0 verdicts
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-862 · Missing Authorization.