Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
Nango versions before 0.71.6 may let anyone who can reach the runner service execute JavaScript without credentials. Successful exploitation could compromise the runner’s data, integrity, and availability. Exposure depends primarily on whether the runner port is network-accessible.
Executive priority
Treat exposed affected runners as an immediate remediation priority. Upgrade promptly and restrict network access while validating. Internally isolated instances still require timely correction because any actor reaching the runner service could potentially gain code execution.
Technical view
The runner tRPC server exposes a start procedure without enforced authentication. Although RUNNER_SECRET_KEY exists, affected versions do not enforce it for this procedure. A network attacker reaching the runner port can invoke the procedure and execute arbitrary JavaScript within the runner process. This is classified as CWE-306 and scored CVSS 4.0 9.2.
Likely exposure
Self-hosted Nango deployments running versions earlier than 0.71.6 are potentially affected when untrusted networks can reach the runner port. The supplied affected-version metadata is inconsistent, listing version “0” while the description states “before 0.71.6”; confirm deployed versions directly.
Exploitation context
No active exploitation is established by the supplied sources, and the CVE is not identified as KEV. Exploitation requires network access to the runner port and interaction with the unauthenticated start procedure. The CVSS vector records an additional attack requirement, but the bundle does not explain that condition.
Researcher notes
The documented root cause is missing authentication on the runner tRPC start procedure, specifically unenforced RUNNER_SECRET_KEY validation. Impact is code execution in the runner process, with confidentiality, integrity, and availability rated high. The bundle does not establish observed exploitation, public proof-of-concept availability, affected hosting models beyond Nango, or the CVSS attack requirement’s precise prerequisite.
Mitigation direction
- Upgrade Nango to version 0.71.6 or later using vendor release guidance.
- Restrict runner-port access to explicitly trusted systems and networks.
- Do not treat RUNNER_SECRET_KEY as protective on affected versions because authentication was unenforced.
- Review vendor patch and release documentation for deployment-specific precautions.
Validation and detection
- Inventory self-hosted Nango instances and record their exact deployed versions.
- Verify every instance is running Nango 0.71.6 or later.
- Confirm the runner port is not reachable from untrusted networks.
- Review runner logs for unexpected start-procedure requests or unexplained code execution.
- Confirm authentication behavior matches the vendor patch after upgrading.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-306: Credential and account abuse lookup
Authentication and credential weaknesses can make valid-account abuse and credential telemetry useful review starting points. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupExecution behavior lookup
The CVE wording references code or command execution, so execution technique review may help defensive triage. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2026-9317 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Critical
- CVSS
- 9.2 (4.0)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
2 official scoresWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N——VulnCheckCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H2.25.9VulnCheckVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 4.0 score
9.2CriticalVector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Base CVSS 3.1 score
8.1HighVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- nango v0.71.6 Release NotesCVE reference, VulnCheck · release-notes
- Pull RequestCVE reference, VulnCheck · issue-tracking, patch
- Patch CommitCVE reference, VulnCheck · patch
- https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/nango-missing-authentication-rce-via-runner-trpc-serverCVE reference, VulnCheck · third-party-advisory
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Missing Authentication for Critical Function
Missing Authentication for Critical Function represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.