CVE-2026-85712: Chartbrew: Cross-tenant project takeover via body.team_id in /project routes
Chartbrew is an open-source web application that can connect directly to databases and APIs and use the data to create charts. Prior to 5.2.3, the shared project permission check trusted a caller-controlled teamid and let the teamOwner/teamAdmin branch continue without confirming that the target project belonged to that team. The vulnerable surface is project routes and related authorization checks that accepted user-controlled project identifiers. An authenticated user who is an owner or admin of their own team submits a victim project id together with the attacker's own teamid in the request body; default self-signup grants the required role on the user's own team. Authorization is evaluated against the attacker-selected team instead of the target project's team, and the update path mass-assigns the request body without a project field allow-list. The attacker needs a valid Chartbrew account, an owner or admin role on their own team, and a victim project identifier; requests without the body teamid trick are rejected. The attacker can re-parent the victim project into their own team, gain full read and write access, expose it publicly, remove password protection, and cause the victim to lose it; the shared delete route also permits cross-tenant deletion. This issue is fixed in version 5.2.3.
Remediation
Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.
- Upgrade
Upgrade
Chartbrewto a version that resolves this vulnerability.Fixed in 5.2.3
Event History
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Chartbrew versions are affected, and what version contains the fix?
Versions prior to 5.2.3 are affected. The issue is addressed in Chartbrew 5.2.3.
Does exploitation require access to the victim's team or project?
No. An attacker needs an authenticated Chartbrew account, an owner or admin role on their own team, and a victim project identifier. They must submit their own team_id in the request body; requests without that manipulation are rejected.
Are deployments using self-signup exposed by default?
Default self-signup grants the role required on the attacker's own team, making it sufficient for exploitation when the attacker can obtain a victim project identifier.
What could an attacker do after exploiting this issue?
They can move the victim project into their own team and obtain full read and write access. They can also make the project public or remove its password protection.