Munshi Broken Object Level Authorization via Invoice Deletion API
Munshi by Petpooja versions before 2026-07-28 let authenticated sub-users delete invoices belonging to the tenant owner. The checked facts list no fixed version.
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
- Specific setups only
Do first: Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs. Munshi (by Petpooja) versions before 2026-07-28 Attacker must be an authenticated sub-user of the tenant
- 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- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean?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? →
- 20/100 · 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? →
- Specific setups only
- 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 product from Petpooja, has a flaw that lets logged-in sub-users delete invoices belonging to the tenant owner, which they should not be able to access. This can lead to unauthorized loss of business invoice data.
Read the original description
Munshi (by Petpooja) before 2026-07-28 contained a broken object level authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated sub-users to delete invoices belonging to the tenant owner by exploiting the DELETE /api/invoice/{invoice_id} and POST /api/invoices/bulk-delete endpoints, which only verify tenant membership without enforcing object-level ownership or permission checks. Attackers can invoke single or bulk deletion requests with arbitrary invoice identifiers to delete invoices they do not own, resulting in unauthorized data loss.
What to do
Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs.
Munshi (by Petpooja) versions before 2026-07-28 Attacker must be an authenticated sub-user of the tenantWorkaround: The checked facts list no fix and no workaround, so none can be recommended from them. Contact Petpooja for current mitigation guidance.
Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
Affected versions
- Petpooja Munshi
through 2026-07-28
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-2026-119732
What does this mean?
An authenticated sub-user can delete invoices that belong to the tenant owner. This works through single or bulk deletion requests that take arbitrary invoice identifiers, which causes unauthorized data loss.Source: vulncheck.com
Am I affected, and how do I check?
The product data lists Munshi by Petpooja with an affected range running through 2026-07-28, and the advisory text says versions before 2026-07-28. A reader can compare the installed Munshi version or build date against that date to see where it falls.Source: vulncheck.com
What should I do about it?
The checked facts name no fixed version, so no upgrade target can be given. Check Petpooja's advisory or vendor channels for a patched release.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 fix and no workaround, so none can be recommended from them. Contact Petpooja for current mitigation guidance.Source: vulncheck.com