Munshi Payment Bypass via Unauthenticated Webhook Endpoint
Affects Munshi by Petpooja versions before 2026-06-30 that use its subscription payment webhook. No vendor severity rating or fixed version is listed in the checked facts.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- No fix listed
- Who is exposed
- Not reported
Do first: Workaround: The checked facts list no workaround. Confirm the mitigation options with Petpooja, since the webhook is the affected component.
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- Published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 21/100 · provisional
- How many real-world setups can hit the bug, from the vendor's advisory and CISA data. It does not know your setup.What do these mean? →
- Unclear
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
Summary
Munshi, a payment and business management application from Petpooja, is affected by a flaw in its subscription payment webhook that lets anyone send a fake payment-success notification without verification. As a result, an attacker can gain paid subscription access without actually completing a payment.
Read the original description
Munshi (by Petpooja) before 2026-06-30 contained a payment bypass vulnerability in its subscription payment webhook at POST /api/payment/order/webhook, which lacks webhook authentication, cryptographic signature verification, source validation, and independent server-side confirmation with the payment provider. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can submit a forged payment-success notification referencing an order obtained from the payment-status redirect URL, causing the backend to mark the subscription as paid/active and granting paid access without an actual successful payment.
What to do
Workaround: The checked facts list no workaround. Confirm the mitigation options with Petpooja, since the webhook is the affected component.
Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
Affected versions
- Petpooja Munshi
through 2026-06-30
Evidence 3
- Exploit
- Link
- Link
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about CVE-2026-119731
What does this mean?
The subscription payment webhook at POST /api/payment/order/webhook does not check authentication, cryptographic signatures, or the request source, and does not confirm payment with the payment provider. A forged payment-success notification can therefore mark a subscription as paid and grant paid access without a real payment.Source: vulncheck.com
Am I affected, and how do I check?
Munshi by Petpooja versions before 2026-06-30 with subscription payments that use the webhook at POST /api/payment/order/webhook. Compare the installed version or build date with the 2026-06-30 cutoff; the checked facts do not name a specific version command.Source: vulncheck.com
What should I do about it?
The checked facts do not list a fixed version or upgrade target. Confirm the current fix status and the first fixed release with Petpooja before relying on any version.Source: vulncheck.com
Is it being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
What if there's no patch?
The checked facts list no workaround. Confirm the mitigation options with Petpooja, since the webhook is the affected component.Source: vulncheck.com