CVE-2026-115770pocket-id insufficient verification of data authenticity
CVE-2026-115770 is a insufficient verification of data authenticity in pocket-id, rated critical (9.6 on CVSS 3.1).
Why this priority: Critical severity, with no exploitation signal yet.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Received
What it is
Data is accepted without proof it came from where it claims.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it over the network, with an ordinary user account, and nobody has to click anything.
What an attacker gains
A successful attack can read the data it protects and change data or behaviour. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker read or tamper with traffic, or pass a forged message as genuine. The damage can spread past the vulnerable component into others.
Is it being exploited?
CISA's SSVC assessment notes a public proof of concept. EPSS estimates a 0.17% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, higher than 6% of scored CVEs.
What to do
- Upgrade pocket-id to 2.12.0 or later.
- Until it is patched, review who holds accounts that can reach it.
Description from NVD
Pocket ID is an OIDC provider that allows users to authenticate with their passkeys to services. From 2.2.0 until 2.12.0, SendEmailVerification uses the token model in backend/internal/model/email_verification_token.go to bind an email-verification token only to the user's identifier, while UpdateUser can change the account email without invalidating the outstanding token and VerifyEmail marks the current address as verified. An ordinary user can request a token for an address they control, change the account to an arbitrary unused address, and redeem the old token so Pocket ID publishes the new address with email_verified set to true. The default affected configuration uses emailsVerified=false and allowOwnAccountEdit=true; the target address must not already belong to another Pocket ID user. A relying application that trusts a verified email for automatic account matching or provisioning can link the attacker's identity to another user's account, while applications that rely exclusively on the stable OIDC sub claim are not affected by that downstream consequence. This issue is fixed in version 2.12.0.
What this means for your architecture.
A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.
Components it touches
- TLS termination and service-to-service channels. The flaw sits on the network path between clients and services.
- Signature checks. The flaw sits on the network path between clients and services.
Trust boundaries in play
- Authenticated network access. An account is needed, so exposure follows who can sign in: customers, partners or staff.
- Isolation between components. The impact crosses out of the vulnerable component into others it should be isolated from.
- On the network path between clients and services. An attacker who crosses it can read or tamper with traffic, or pass a forged message as genuine.
Questions to answer about your own systems
- Where does pocket-id run in your systems, and at which version?
- Which of those instances can be reached from the internet or partner networks?
- What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?
Sources
- CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
- Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
- Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.