MediumCVE-2026-82557

    Apache Wicket: Missing Authorization (CVE-2026-82557)

    Published Last modified Sources: BSI, CVE.org

    Share

    What is affected, what to do

    Missing authorization in Apache Wicket. org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form resolves the component that submitted a form from the request parameters in Form#onRequest() and passes the result directly to Form#onFormSubmitted(IFormSubmitter). The check that the submitting component is visible and enabled in its hierarchy runs only when onFormSubmitted() is given no submitter, so it no longer runs for an ordinary form submission, and it is the only point at which Wicket verifies that the application actually offered the named control to the caller.

    Update Wicket to version 9.25.0.

    Affected
    • Apache Wicket lte 10.3.0..10.11.0

    Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

    Metrics

    6.9

    Priority

    XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.

    Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v4

    6.9

    CVSS v4

    Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.

    Source: BSI, CVE.org

    0.3 %

    EPSS score

    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

    Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 22.4

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    Medium
    Priority (0–325)

    The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?

    Read in glossary
    68.49 Methodology
    Exploit maturity

    An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.

    Read in glossary
    no public PoC known
    XIEM Effective CVSS

    XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.

    Read in glossary
    6.9 Methodology
    CVSS v4

    CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.

    Read in glossary
    6.9
    EPSS score

    The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.

    Read in glossary
    0.3 %
    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
    EPSS percentile

    The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.

    Read in glossary
    22.4
    Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 10% of all CVEs scored today.
    KEV status

    The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.

    Read in glossary
    —
    Published
    CISA assessment (SSVC)
    Exploitation: none known · automatable · Technical impact: partial
    Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 6 November 2026
    CWE

    CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.

    Read in glossary
    CWE-862

    Detection rules

    No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

    Classification under NIS2 and CRA

    Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

    NIS2

    NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.

    Read in glossary
    Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
    CRA

    The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.

    Read in glossary
    From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
    ISO/IEC 27001

    ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.

    Read in glossary
    Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

    Description

    Missing authorization in Apache Wicket. org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form resolves the component that submitted a form from the request parameters in Form#onRequest() and passes the result directly to Form#onFormSubmitted(IFormSubmitter). The check that the submitting component is visible and enabled in its hierarchy runs only when onFormSubmitted() is given no submitter, so it no longer runs for an ordinary form submission, and it is the only point at which Wicket verifies that the application actually offered the named control to the caller. Form#findSubmitter() matches on the request parameter name alone and applies no visibility or enablement filter, and the request handler checks only the form itself, which is visible and enabled. A request that names a submit button the application withheld therefore reaches that button's onSubmit() and onAfterSubmit(), and its onError() when form validation fails; where the button sets setDefaultFormProcessing(false) it reaches onSubmit() and onAfterSubmit() without any form validation. An application is affected where a form submitting component, such as a Button or a SubmitLink, is unavailable to the caller while the enclosing form remains available. How the component was made unavailable does not matter: the component's own setVisible(false), setEnabled(false) or setVisibilityAllowed(false), an overridden isVisible() or isEnabled(), an invisible or disabled parent container anywhere above it, and a RENDER or ENABLE denial from IAuthorizationStrategy — for example through MetaDataRoleAuthorizationStrategy or the AuthorizeAction annotation — are all enforced by that one check, and all of them are bypassed. A component that renders as disabled carries its own input name in the markup the caller already holds. Submissions made through AjaxFormSubmitBehavior, and therefore through AjaxButton and AjaxSubmitLink, are not affected: those are invoked as a behaviour on the button itself, the behaviour's invocation is authorized against that button, and the non-Ajax callbacks of those two classes do nothing. Restrictions applied to the form or to the page rather than to the submitting component are unaffected. The 9.x and 8.x release lines, and the unsupported lines before them, are not affected; the behaviour was introduced in 10.3.0. This issue affects Apache Wicket: from 10.3.0 through 10.11.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 10.12.0, which fixes the issue.

    Source: BSI CSAF, BSI WID Portal, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5

    Affected products

    The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

    Affected products
    Affected versionsFixed in
    Apache Software FoundationApache Wicket
    • 10.3.0 – ≤ 10.11.0
    • —
    ApacheWicket
    • < 9.25.0
    • < 10.12.0
    • < 8.20.0
    • 9.25.0
    • 10.12.0
    • 8.20.0

    Vendors and products

    Weakness classes (CWE)

    • CWE-862Missing Authorization

      Class

      The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-862

    References & sources

    Changes to this CVE

    Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).

    1. Record modifiedCISA ADP

      CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: yes

      Show the original change
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      SSVC assessmentadded
      —
      {"id":"CVE-2026-82557","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"yes"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-11-06T14:46:13.042383Z"}

      Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

    2. ReceivedApache

      CVSS V4.0: AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

      Weakness type: CWE-862

      Description added or changed

      Show 5 original changes
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      Descriptionadded
      —
      Missing authorization in Apache Wicket. org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form resolves the component that submitted a form from the request parameters in Form#onRequest() and passes the result directly to Form#onFormSubmitted(IFormSubmitter). The check that the submitting component is visible and enabled in its hierarchy runs only when onFormSubmitted() is given no submitter, so it no longer runs for an ordinary form submission, and it is the only point at which Wicket verifies that the application actually offered the named control to the caller. Form#findSubmitter() matches on the request parameter name alone and applies no visibility or enablement filter, and the request handler checks only the form itself, which is visible and enabled. A request that names a submit button the application withheld therefore reaches that button's onSubmit() and onAfterSubmit(), and its onError() when form validation fails; where the button sets setDefaultFormProcessing(false) it reaches onSubmit() and onAfterSubmit() without any form validation. An application is affected where a form submitting component, such as a Button or a SubmitLink, is unavailable to the caller while the enclosing form remains available. How the component was made unavailable does not matter: the component's own setVisible(false), setEnabled(false) or setVisibilityAllowed(false), an overridden isVisible() or isEnabled(), an invisible or disabled parent container anywhere above it, and a RENDER or ENABLE denial from IAuthorizationStrategy — for example through MetaDataRoleAuthorizationStrategy or the AuthorizeAction annotation — are all enforced by that one check, and all of them are bypassed. A component that renders as disabled carries its own input name in the markup the caller already holds. Submissions made through AjaxFormSubmitBehavior, and therefore through AjaxButton and AjaxSubmitLink, are not affected: those are invoked as a behaviour on the button itself, the behaviour's invocation is authorized against that button, and the non-Ajax callbacks of those two classes do nothing. Restrictions applied to the form or to the page rather than to the submitting component are unaffected. The 9.x and 8.x release lines, and the unsupported lines before them, are not affected; the behaviour was introduced in 10.3.0. This issue affects Apache Wicket: from 10.3.0 through 10.11.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 10.12.0, which fixes the issue.
      CVSSadded
      —
      AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
      Weakness type (CWE)added
      —
      CWE-862
      Affected versions (publisher)added
      —
      New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/82xxx/CVE-2026-82557.json">CVE-2026-82557</a>
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/lz4jot6f9ycxfjyhmlr2b4ssynmgpy92

      Source identifier: security@apache.org

    Embed badge

    Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

    Badge preview for CVE-2026-82557
    <a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-82557"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-82557.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-82557 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>