Vulnerabilities in pkg:pypi/pacioli-guard
PACKAGECVE-2026-107841 is a MODERATE (CVSS 5.7) a submit consent marker licensed vulnerability (CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization) affecting pacioli libraries in the PyPI ecosystem. The issue involves a submit consent marker licensed cancellation of caller-named pre-existing documents. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 0.10.0.
pkg:pypi/pacioli-guard
Vulnerability advisories affecting package pkg:pypi/pacioli-guard. Select an advisory below to view technical details or fixes.
| Advisory ID | CVE / NVD | Severity | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-3hj7-6vmj-h8v4 | CVE-2026-107841 | MODERATE | pacioli: A submit consent marker licensed cancellation of caller-named pre-existing documents |
CVE-2026-107841 at a Glance
Security Impact
CVSS: 5.7
The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N).
How to Fix CVE-2026-107841
To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected pacioli dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.
pip install pacioli-guard>=0.10.0
Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:
pip show pacioli-guard
How to Check if You Are Affected
To determine whether your Python environment is affected by CVE-2026-107841, inspect your installed packages using pip:
pip show pacioli-guard
Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of pacioli in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 0.10.0), your application is affected.
Note: The pip show pacioli-guard command checks currently installed packages in your active Python environment.
Technical Details
Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis
This vulnerability is classified under CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization, where the product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. In pacioli, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.
Source Advisory Statement
CVE-2026-107841 Affected pacioli Versions
1 component(s)| Product / Package | Ecosystem | Affected Versions | Fixed Version |
|---|---|---|---|
|
pacioli-guard
|
PyPI |
≥ 0.9.6
< 0.10.0
|
0.10.0
|
References
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-107841?
Which pacioli versions are affected?
What version fixes CVE-2026-107841?
Is pacioli-guard affected?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-107841?
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-107841?
How can I check PyPI dependencies for CVE-2026-107841?
Machine-readable OSV JSON
OSV v1.5 Schema
{
"schema_version" : "1.4.0",
"id" : "GHSA-3hj7-6vmj-h8v4",
"modified" : "2026-10-09T20:42:51Z",
"published" : "2026-10-09T20:42:51Z",
"aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-107841" ],
"summary" : "pacioli: A submit consent marker licensed cancellation of caller-named pre-existing documents",
"details" : "### Impact\n\n`pacioli-guard`'s document-layer consent gate requires a human-minted, single-use, document-bound and **act-bound** marker before a credential carrying `API Key Scope.require_consent` may submit or cancel a document. Because ERPNext performs further document writes as a consequence of a governed act, nested acts are allowed to \"ride\" the consent established by the enclosing act instead of needing a marker of their own.\n\nThe ride predicate returned `true` for **every** cancel, regardless of which act the enclosing marker authorised. Riding never reaches `consent_verdict`, which is where the marker-to-act binding is enforced. The result: any `Document.cancel()` performed inside an act that had established consent reached `docstatus = 2` with no marker, no act-binding check, no single-use spend, and **no denial audit row**.\n\nThis is reachable with the exact grant an operator is documented to give the broker, and the cancelled document's identity is caller-controlled:\n\n- `Sales Invoice.on_submit` (`sales_invoice.py:507`) calls `process_asset_depreciation()` unconditionally, reaching `depreciate_asset_on_sale` (`:1508-1516`).\n- That iterates the invoice's item rows and calls `frappe.get_doc(\"Asset\", d.asset)`. `Sales Invoice Item.asset` is a plain writable `Link` with no `read_only` and no `fetch_from`, so the caller supplies it in the request body. The validation that would constrain it sits behind `if d.is_fixed_asset:` (`:428-429`), a server-set field.\n- The chain reaches `depreciation.py:481` and then `asset_depreciation_schedule.py:215-217`, which calls `current_schedule.cancel()` on a `docstatus == 1`, submittable `Asset Depreciation Schedule` **through the document lifecycle** (only `should_not_cancel_depreciation_entries` is set, not `ignore_validate`, so `before_cancel` does fire and the ride is what admitted it).\n\nSo one marker authorising `submit Sales Invoice X` cancelled a submitted document the human was never shown and never approved. Cancelling such a document reverses its ledger effect.\n\nThe same shape exists behind wider grants, for example `Unreconcile Payment.on_submit` (`unreconcile_payment.py:59-64`), which walks a child table the caller fills and reaches `accounts/utils.py:857`/`:859` `gain_loss_je.cancel()` on submitted Journal Entries.\n\n### Who is affected\n\nOnly sites that had opted into consent gating: a credential must hold an `API Key Scope` with `require_consent` set. `pacioli-guard` is inert for principals without such a grant, and the credential-scoping floor (`auth_hooks`) is unaffected by this issue.\n\nThe document-layer consent gate was first published in 0.9.6, which is the only released version in the affected range.\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in **0.10.0**. The ride now discriminates on the **enclosing act**: an undo may cascade into further undos, but a submit may not cascade into the cancellation of a document that already has a name, because that is an act a human could have been asked to approve. The custody stamp carries the act it was established for rather than a bare boolean, which is the state the vulnerable code lacked.\n\n**Upgrading changes behavior.** Any ERPNext flow where a submit cascades into a lifecycle cancel now requires a consent marker for that cancel as well as for the act itself. In ERPNext v16 that includes asset sale, partial-quantity asset sale, a credit note against an asset sale, Asset Repair capitalization, Asset Shift Allocation, Asset Value Adjustment, and `Unreconcile Payment`. To make that possible, the `X-Pacioli-Consent` header now accepts several markers separated by whitespace or commas; each remains bound to one document and one act, requires a different minter, and is spent exactly once.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nOn 0.9.6, remove `require_consent` from affected grants and rely on the credential-scoping floor alone, or scope governed credentials so they cannot submit documents whose controllers cancel other documents (for ERPNext slice-one, `Sales Invoice` with a populated item-row `asset` link is the known path). Neither is a substitute for upgrading.\n\n### Residual, stated\n\nUnder a governed **cancel**, a cascaded cancel of a pre-existing document still rides. That is load-bearing for undo (an ordinary invoice cancel makes ERPNext cancel the credit/debit notes and journals it generated, via `accounts_controller.py:2001-2005`) and cannot be narrowed without a signal that a cascaded cancel is a consequence of the enclosing document specifically. That justification does not describe everything the residual admits: at least one instance is caller-steered in the same shape as the issue fixed here, `Asset Repair.on_cancel` (`asset_repair.py:215-222`), which cancels a `Serial and Batch Bundle` named by a Link the caller fills in a child table. `pacioli-guard` also does not see writes that set `flags.ignore_validate` or that skip the document lifecycle entirely (raw SQL, `db_update`/`db_set` field writes); those residuals are published in the project's own documentation and are unchanged by this advisory.\n\n### Credit\n\nFound by an internal adversarial review on 2026-07-28 that traced the predicate against frappe 16.28.0 and ERPNext v16 source rather than the project's own documentation. The prior code comment asserted that no such lever was known; that assertion had been written without the corresponding source sweep.",
"severity" : [ {
"type" : "CVSS_V3",
"score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"
} ],
"affected" : [ {
"package" : {
"ecosystem" : "PyPI",
"name" : "pacioli-guard"
},
"ranges" : [ {
"type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
"events" : [ {
"introduced" : "0.9.6"
}, {
"fixed" : "0.10.0"
} ]
} ]
} ],
"references" : [ {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/john-broadway/pacioli/security/advisories/GHSA-3hj7-6vmj-h8v4"
}, {
"type" : "ADVISORY",
"url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-107841"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/john-broadway/pacioli/commit/f3c7219f5dde6050bd7921e0ac55afd02771250c"
}, {
"type" : "PACKAGE",
"url" : "https://github.com/john-broadway/pacioli"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/john-broadway/pacioli/releases/tag/guard-v0.10.0"
} ],
"database_specific" : {
"cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-863" ],
"severity" : "MODERATE",
"github_reviewed" : true,
"github_reviewed_at" : "2026-10-09T20:42:51Z",
"nvd_published_at" : "2026-10-09T18:17:06Z"
}
}