CVE-2026-81902: Concrete CMS: CSRF in removeOrphanedBlocks deletes page content
HIGHConcrete CMS 9 through 9.5.2 skips CSRF token validation on the orphaned block removal action, so an attacker can get an authenticated editor to load a crafted link or page that wipes every block on the target page and permanently deletes unaliased block data from the database. Note that this is a general-purpose CMS flagged with an ml_ui category and no tracked AI package, so its AI/ML relevance is marginal and only matters if it fronts AI documentation, model portals or content feeding RAG pipelines. Exploitation likelihood is low-to-moderate (EPSS 0.24%, 86th percentile), with no public exploit, no Nuclei template, no KEV listing and a CISA SSVC decision of TRACK. The impact is integrity and availability loss of content rather than data theft, and it requires user interaction from someone with edit permission. Upgrade to the fixed release noted in the Concrete CMS 9.5.3 release notes and verify that recent backups of the CMS database exist.
What is the risk?
Medium-to-high by CVSS v3.1 (8.1) but moderated by real-world factors: user interaction is required, the victim must hold edit permission on the target page, no public exploit or scanner template exists, and EPSS is low (0.0024). Impact is limited to integrity and availability of CMS content (permanent deletion), with no confidentiality impact. AI/ML exposure is indirect and only relevant where the CMS hosts AI-related content.
How does the attack unfold?
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
1 step1) Upgrade Concrete CMS to 9.5.3 or later per the vendor release notes. 2) Until patched, restrict edit permissions to the minimum number of users and avoid browsing untrusted links while logged in to the CMS admin. 3) Ensure SameSite cookie attributes are set to Lax or Strict on the session cookie. 4) Maintain and test regular database and file backups to allow recovery of deleted blocks. 5) Monitor web logs for requests to the removeOrphanedBlocks panel action with external or missing Referer headers, and for sudden mass block deletions.
What does CISA's SSVC say?
Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.
How is it classified?
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
This CVE is relevant to:
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-81902?
Concrete CMS 9 through 9.5.2 skips CSRF token validation on the orphaned block removal action, so an attacker can get an authenticated editor to load a crafted link or page that wipes every block on the target page and permanently deletes unaliased block data from the database. Note that this is a general-purpose CMS flagged with an ml_ui category and no tracked AI package, so its AI/ML relevance is marginal and only matters if it fronts AI documentation, model portals or content feeding RAG pipelines. Exploitation likelihood is low-to-moderate (EPSS 0.24%, 86th percentile), with no public exploit, no Nuclei template, no KEV listing and a CISA SSVC decision of TRACK. The impact is integrity and availability loss of content rather than data theft, and it requires user interaction from someone with edit permission. Upgrade to the fixed release noted in the Concrete CMS 9.5.3 release notes and verify that recent backups of the CMS database exist.
Is CVE-2026-81902 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-81902 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-81902?
1) Upgrade Concrete CMS to 9.5.3 or later per the vendor release notes. 2) Until patched, restrict edit permissions to the minimum number of users and avoid browsing untrusted links while logged in to the CMS admin. 3) Ensure SameSite cookie attributes are set to Lax or Strict on the session cookie. 4) Maintain and test regular database and file backups to allow recovery of deleted blocks. 5) Monitor web logs for requests to the removeOrphanedBlocks panel action with external or missing Referer headers, and for sudden mass block deletions.
What systems are affected by CVE-2026-81902?
This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: Web content management systems, Documentation and knowledge portals feeding RAG pipelines.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-81902?
CVE-2026-81902 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.24%.
What is the AI security impact?
Affected AI Architectures
MITRE ATLAS Techniques
AML.T0011.003Malicious LinkAML.T0049Exploit Public-Facing ApplicationCompliance Controls Affected
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
Concrete CMS 9 through 9.5.2 did not validate a CSRF token in the orphaned block removal panel action (removeOrphanedBlocks). A remote attacker could craft a request that, when loaded by an authenticated user holding edit permission on the target page, deleted every block on that page's current version; blocks not aliased to another page or scrapbook entry were also removed from the global Blocks table and their block-type data table, permanently destroying the content. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v4.0 score of 7.1 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori from Tenzai for reporting.
Exploitation Scenario
An attacker identifies an organization running Concrete CMS 9.x that hosts an AI product documentation or knowledge portal. They send a content editor a phishing email or plant an image or form on a third-party site that issues a request to the removeOrphanedBlocks panel action for a high-value page. When the logged-in editor opens the link, all blocks on the page's current version are deleted and unaliased blocks are purged from the database, permanently destroying the content. Any RAG index later re-crawling the page ingests empty or degraded content.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-352 — Cross-Site Request Forgery: The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
- [Architecture and Design] Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- [Implementation] Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HTimeline
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2026-2185810.0n8n: Input Validation flaw enables exploitation
Same attack type: Auth BypassGHSA-vvpj-8cmc-gx3910.0picklescan: security flaw enables exploitation
Same attack type: Auth BypassCVE-2025-5376710.0Azure OpenAI: SSRF EoP, no auth required (CVSS 10)
Same attack type: Auth BypassCVE-2025-282810.0LangChain RequestsToolkit: SSRF exposes cloud metadata
Same attack type: Auth BypassCVE-2026-2603010.0semantic-kernel: Code Injection enables RCE
Same attack type: Auth Bypass