PaperCut NG/MF Missing Authentication for Critical Function Vulnerability
Exploited since 2026-08-31. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: partly blocked.
An improper access control vulnerability exists in the web management interface of PaperCut MF and PaperCut NG. Under specific conditions, unauthenticated remote requests targeting administrative functions can trigger backend actions prior… More
An improper access control vulnerability exists in the web management interface of PaperCut MF and PaperCut NG. Under specific conditions, unauthenticated remote requests targeting administrative functions can trigger backend actions prior to the completion of access validation checks. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to modify certain system configurations.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 4.0Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and availability and full loss of integrity.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.None
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.Low
- Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.Low
- Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.None
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.None
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
2 found- MetasploitPaperCut NG/MF Unauthenticated RCE (CVE-2026-81578 + CVE-2026-82078)2026-08-27 · exploit · rank Excellent · has check
- NucleiCVE-2026-81578.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2026-08-27Metasploit module publishedPaperCut NG/MF Unauthenticated RCE (CVE-2026-81578 + CVE-2026-82078)
- 2026-08-28CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-08-31Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
- 2026-10-21F5 rule names itEarliest entry we can see is an update
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of itparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of itparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
Named by 2026-10-21; the first entry is an update, so the rule may be older.
Updated: signature 200013222 "PaperCut NG/MF Authentication Bypass" (Authentication/Authorization Attacks, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-81578, CVE-2026-82078.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.