CVE-2026-55077: Anthropic Python — HIGH

### Summary The `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. > **Note:** Exploitation...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package	Ecosystem	Vulnerable Range	Patched
Anthropic Python	go	>= 2.34.0, < 2.34.2	`2.34.2`
3.7K 5.4K dependents Pushed 4d ago 95% patched ~3d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use Anthropic Python? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1

7.2 / 10

EPSS

N/A

Exploitation Status

No known exploitation

Sophistication

N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV Network

AC Low

PR High

UI None

S Unchanged

C High

I High

A High

What should I do?

Patch available

Update Anthropic Python to version 2.34.2

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-55077?

### Summary The `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. > **Note:** Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. ### Impact A `user-admin` could reset any owner's password without knowing it, authenticate as that owner and gain full deployment control, including templates, workspaces, licensing, organization settings and the ability to self-assign the `owner` role. This was a privilege escalation from `user-admin` to `owner`. ### Patches The fix prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. The fix was backported to all supported release lines: | Release line | Patched version | |---|---| | 2.34 | [v2.34.2](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.34.2) | | 2.33 | [v2.33.8](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.33.8) | | 2.32 | [v2.32.7](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.32.7) | | 2.29 (ESR) | [v2.29.17](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.29.17) | ### Workarounds Restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators until upgrading. ### Resources - Fix: #25709 ### Credits Coder would like to thank Anthropic's Security Team (ANT-2026-22436) for independently disclosing this issue!

Is CVE-2026-55077 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-55077 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-55077?

Update to patched version: Anthropic Python 2.34.2.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-55077?

CVE-2026-55077 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.2 (HIGH).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

### Summary The `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. > **Note:** Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. ### Impact A `user-admin` could reset any owner's password without knowing it, authenticate as that owner and gain full deployment control, including templates, workspaces, licensing, organization settings and the ability to self-assign the `owner` role. This was a privilege escalation from `user-admin` to `owner`. ### Patches The fix prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. The fix was backported to all supported release lines: | Release line | Patched version | |---|---| | 2.34 | [v2.34.2](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.34.2) | | 2.33 | [v2.33.8](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.33.8) | | 2.32 | [v2.32.7](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.32.7) | | 2.29 (ESR) | [v2.29.17](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.29.17) | ### Workarounds Restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators until upgrading. ### Resources - Fix: #25709 ### Credits Coder would like to thank Anthropic's Security Team (ANT-2026-22436) for independently disclosing this issue!

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-285 Improper Authorization Primary

CWE-285 — Improper Authorization: The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

[Architecture and Design] Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
[Architecture and Design] Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.