ZITADEL is an open source identity management platform. Starting in version 2.31.0 and prior to versions 3.4.7 and 4.11.0, opaque OIDC access tokens in the v2 format truncated to 80 characters are still considered valid. Zitadel uses a symmetric AES encryption for opaque tokens. The cleartext payload is a concatenation of a couple of identifiers, such as a token ID and user ID. Internally Zitadel has 2 different versions of token payloads. v1 tokens are no longer created, but are still verified as to not invalidate existing session after upgrade. The cleartext payload has a format of :. v2 tokens distinguished further where the token_id is of the format v2_-at_. V1 token authZ/N session data is retrieved from the database using the (simple) token_id value and user_id value. The user_id (called subject in some parts of our code) was used as being the trusted user ID. V2 token authZ/N session data is retrieved from the database using the oidc_session_id and access_token_id and in this case the user_id from the token is ignored and taken from the session data in the database. By truncating the token to 80 chars, the user_id is now missing from the cleartext of the v2 token. The back-end still accepts this for above reasons. This issue is not considered exploitable, but may look awkward when reproduced. The patch in versions 4.11.0 and 3.4.7 resolves the issue by verifying the user_id from the token against the session data from the database. No known workarounds are available.
CVE-2026-27840
This medium-severity CVE scores 4.3 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit-prediction score not yet available (the EPSS model rescores nightly; freshly-published CVEs typically appear within 48 hours). GitHub Security Advisory data not yet ingested — confidence will rise once GHSA publishes (typical lag: hours to days for open-source ecosystem CVEs; never for infrastructure-only CVEs).
- Lower severity and no public exploit yet
No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.
- CVSS v3
- 4.3
- EG Score
- 4.3(low)
- EG Risk
- 24(Track)EG Risk 24/100SSVC: Track
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).
How it’s computedSeverity43% × 45%Exploitation0% × 40%Automatability30% × 15%Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence. - EPSS PROB
- 0%
- EPSS %ILE
- 4%
- KEV
- Not listed
Published
February 26, 2026
Last Modified
June 17, 2026
References (3)
- security-advisories@githubhttps://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v3.4.7
- security-advisories@githubhttps://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v4.11.0
- security-advisories@githubhttps://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/security/advisories/GHSA-6mq3-xmgp-pjm5
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 5× in last 7d / 5× in last 30d)
Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.
- 2026-08-01 04:16 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-30 16:27 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-30 01:30 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-28 15:36 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-27 13:34 UTCEG score recompute
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-27840?
When was CVE-2026-27840 disclosed?
Is CVE-2026-27840 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-27840?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-27840?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-27840
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-27840?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.