CVE-2026-62874

Executive Summary

CVE-2026-62874 is a critical (CVSS 10.0) improper verification of data authenticity vulnerability (CWE-345) in Microsoft Azure Billing that allows an unauthorized, unauthenticated attacker to elevate privileges over the network. Because the CNA record names no affected product version, patch reference, or fixed build, defenders cannot scope exposure from the record alone and must treat any internet-adjacent Azure Billing integration surface as potentially affected. The combination of network reachability (AV:N), no privileges required (PR:N), no user interaction (UI:N), and a changed security scope (S:C) makes this an unauthenticated lateral-impact primitive rather than a simple data-leak authorization bug, with high impact to both confidentiality and integrity of billing and subscription management data.

Technical Analysis

The NVD description states the vulnerability class precisely and sparsely: "Insufficient verification of data authenticity in Azure Billing allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network."

Mapping this to CWE-345 (Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity): the core defect is that a component of Azure Billing consumes or trusts data — an inbound request, message, token, callback, or data object — without adequately verifying its origin or integrity. The description does not disclose which artifact is unauthenticated (for example, whether a webhook payload, signed token, message-bus event, or API request body). It also does not name any endpoint, header, parameter, or function. No CNA title, no CPE, and no affected version range were supplied. Every implementation-level detail beyond the class description would therefore be speculation, and none is asserted here.

What is derivable from the record is the security-relevant shape of the flaw:

• Attack vector (AV:N): the flaw is reachable over a network. The attacker does not need local access, a management-plane foothold, or a physical position in the Azure fabric.
• Attack complexity (AC:L): no special conditions, race windows, or bypass of a secondary defense are described. The record implies a deterministic, repeatable exploitation path.
• Privileges required (PR:N): the attacker starts unauthenticated. The vulnerability itself is what confers privilege elevation — this is the defining characteristic of an authentication/authorization bypass rather than a post-auth privilege-escalation bug.
• User interaction (UI:N): no victim click, OAuth consent prompt, or operator action is needed. Exploitation can be machine-to-machine.
• Scope (S:C): the security authority that is impacted is different from the vulnerable component. A compromise inside the billing processing boundary is assessed to affect resources outside it — consistent with an elevation that crosses tenant, subscription, or service boundaries rather than remaining confined to the vulnerable component.
• Confidentiality (C:H) / Integrity (I:H): billing data is both highly sensitive (cost, usage, subscription and account identifiers) and highly integrity-sensitive (invoice amounts, credit and payment state, quota and entitlement records). Both are assessed high.
• Availability (A:L): impact to availability is limited, consistent with a manipulation/credential-impact flaw rather than a destructive or DoS-oriented one.

The practical takeaway is that this is an authenticity-bypass primitive with cross-boundary privilege elevation. The weak-verification pattern (CWE-345) is architecturally dangerous in billing/identity-adjacent services because downstream systems frequently act on billing state as if it were inherently trustworthy — provisioning resources, adjusting entitlements, or granting roles based on billing records. When the authenticity check on the input to that state is missing or insufficient, the trust chain that downstream authorization decisions rely upon collapses.

Because no fixed version is published in the available data, the "vulnerable vs. patched" boundary cannot be drawn. The single patch claim, attributed to NVD and unconfirmed by any vendor advisory, should be treated as an unverified assertion until Microsoft publishes an authoritative reference.

Exploitation Scenarios

Strict scope note: No public PoC, exploit code, or Nuclei template exists for this CVE (PoC_STATUS: None; Nuclei Template: NO; Exploit Code: NO). The chain below is inferred from the vulnerability class (CWE-345) and the CVSS vector only. No endpoint, parameter, header, or function name is invented, because none appears in the NVD description or CNA title.

1. Reconnaissance / target identification. The attacker identifies an internet-reachable surface that feeds Azure Billing or that Azure Billing consumes. Because the record provides no endpoint or asset naming, identification is opportunistic and service-wide: any Azure Billing integration exposed to the network is in scope, including any customer- or partner-facing ingress that routes unauthenticated data into billing processing. The attacker does not need valid Azure credentials, a subscription, or a user session, since PR:N applies.

2. Triggering the specific flaw class. The attacker sends crafted data to the unauthenticated ingress. Because the service does not adequately verify the authenticity of that data (it may verify structural well-formedness while failing to verify origin, signature, or integrity), the payload is accepted as though it originated from a trusted source. This is the essence of CWE-345: the check that should establish "this data really came from who it claims to come from and has not been altered" is insufficient, absent, or bypassable. The record gives no indication of how the check fails — no mention of a signature algorithm, token format, comparison method, or omission — so no such mechanism is asserted.

3. Execution / effect at the vulnerability-class level. On acceptance of the unauthenticated data, the processing path acts on it. The effect the CVE records is privilege elevation over a network — the injected/forged data causes the service to grant or apply a privilege level the attacker did not legitimately hold. Given AC:L and UI:N, this is a single-step, repeatable operation with no user accompaniment required.

4. Post-exploitation impact. Per the vector, the elevation's effect (S:C) crosses the vulnerable component's security boundary. Practical consequences map to the C:H/I:H grades: unauthorized access to and manipulation of billing, usage, subscription, and entitlement data, and — because billing state frequently gates downstream authorization and provisioning — potential expansion of access beyond the initial surface. Availability impact is limited (A:L), consistent with manipulation rather than destruction. No specific persistence, data-exfiltration channel, or lateral-movement technique is documented and none is claimed.

Impact Assessment

• Business impact: Billing systems are financially and legally sensitive. Forged or unauthenticated billing data can distort invoicing, entitlements, and quota enforcement, producing direct financial loss, service-level disputes, and compliance exposure. Because the flaw enables privilege elevation rather than mere read access, the impact is authorization-scope, not just data-exposure.
• Affected systems: Any Azure Billing component or integration whose inputs are processed without adequate authenticity verification. Blast radius is bounded by the service boundary but, per S:C, is not confined to the vulnerable component itself.
• Exploitability: Maximum. CVSS 10.0, AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C — unauthenticated, remote, low-complexity, no user interaction.
• Prevalence of exploitation in the wild: No evidence. CISA KEV: NO. EPSS: not yet scored by FIRST.org (no value is asserted here). No PoC or exploit code is public.
• Patch status: CLAIMED only (2/4 confidence, single source = NVD). No vendor advisory, no fixed version, no workaround documented.
• Residual risk: High until an authoritative patch and version boundary are published, because defenders cannot scope exposure from the CVE record alone.

Detection Guidance

Sigma Rule

title: Azure Billing Data Authenticity Bypass - Privilege Elevation Attempt (CVE-2026-62874)
id: 9f4c1e2a-6b7d-4c3e-8a1f-2d5e7c9b0a34
status: experimental
description: Detects anomalous unauthenticated access and privilege-elevation activity against Azure Billing service endpoints, consistent with CWE-345 data authenticity bypass (CVE-2026-62874).
references:
  - https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62874
author: valtersit.com Threat Intelligence
date: 2026/01/01
tags:
  - attack.t1190
  - attack.privilege_escalation
  - cve.2026-62874
logsource:
  product: azure
  service: activitylogs
detection:
  selection_operation:
    operationName|contains:
      - 'billing'
      - 'Billing'
  selection_elevation:
    properties.message|contains:
      - 'role assignment'
      - 'elevate'
      - 'privilege'
      - 'unauthorized'
      - 'authentication failed'
  selection_principal:
    identity.authorization.action|contains:
      - 'write'
      - 'delete'
  condition: selection_operation and (selection_elevation or selection_principal)
falsepositives:
  - Legitimate billing administration by authorized principals
  - Automated billing reconciliation jobs
level: high

YARA Rule

rule CVE_2026_62874_Azure_Billing_Auth_Bypass_Indicators
{
    meta:
        description = "Detects artifacts referencing Azure Billing data authenticity bypass (CVE-2026-62874, CWE-345)"
        author = "valtersit.com Threat Intelligence"
        reference = "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62874"
        date = "2026-01-01"
        severity = "critical"

    strings:
        $cve = "CVE-2026-62874" ascii wide
        $azure = "azure billing" ascii wide nocase
        $cwe = "CWE-345" ascii
        $b1 = "billing" ascii wide nocase
        $b2 = "subscription" ascii wide nocase
        $b3 = "elevate privileges" ascii wide nocase
        $b4 = "data authenticity" ascii wide nocase
        $b5 = "unauthorized" ascii wide nocase

    condition:
        any of ($cve, $cwe) or
        (1 of ($b1, $b2) and 1 of ($b3, $b4, $b5)) or
        ($azure and 1 of ($b3, $b4))
}

Suricata IDS Rule

alert http any any -> any any (msg:"CVE-2026-62874 Azure Billing Data Authenticity Bypass - Suspicious Unauthenticated Billing Request"; flow:to_server,established; http.uri; content:"billing"; nocase; http.header; content:"Authorization"; negated; threshold:type both, track by_src, count 20, seconds 60; classtype:attempted-admin; reference:cve,2026-62874; reference:url,nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62874; sid:202662874; rev:1;)

Elastic Detection

sequence by source.ip with maxspan=5m
  [network where network.protocol == "http" and
      url.path : "*billing*" and
      http.request.method in ("POST", "PUT", "PATCH")]
  [network where network.protocol == "http" and
      url.path : "*billing*" and
      http.response.status_code in (200, 201, 204) and
      not user.name : *]

Splunk SPL Query

index=azure sourcetype=azure:activity OR sourcetype=azure:signin
(operationName="*billing*" OR operationName="*Billing*" OR properties.message="*billing*")
| where isnull('identity.claims.aud') OR isnull('userPrincipalName') OR 'resultType'="Success"
| stats count min(_time) as first_seen max(_time) as last_seen
    values(operationName) as operations
    values(identity.authorization.action) as actions
    values(callerIpAddress) as src_ips
    by 'userPrincipalName', 'callerIpAddress'
| where count > 5
| eval first_seen=strftime(first_seen,"%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"),
       last_seen=strftime(last_seen,"%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")
| sort - count

Wazuh OSSEC Rule

<group name="azure,cve-2026-62874,">
  <rule id="20262874" level="12">
    <decoded_as>json</decoded_as>
    <field name="operationName">\.*[Bb]illing\.*</field>
    <field name="resultType">Success</field>
    <description>CVE-2026-62874: Azure Billing operation succeeded - possible data authenticity bypass / privilege elevation</description>
    <mitre>
      <id>T1190</id>
    </mitre>
    <group>azure_billing,privilege_escalation,</group>
  </rule>

  <rule id="20262875" level="13">
    <decoded_as>json</decoded_as>
    <field name="operationName">\.*[Bb]illing\.*</field>
    <field name="identity.authorization.action">write|delete</field>
    <description>CVE-2026-62874: Azure Billing write/delete by unauthenticated or anomalous principal - high-confidence elevation attempt</description>
    <mitre>
      <id>T1190</id>
    </mitre>
    <group>azure_billing,privilege_escalation,</group>
  </rule>
</group>

Mitigation & Patch Guidance

Patch confidence: 2/4 — CLAIMED. A single source (NVD) indicates a patch exists, but no vendor advisory, KB number, fixed version, or release date is provided. This is not independently confirmed. Do not treat the service as remediated on the basis of this record alone.

1) Immediate mitigations (interim, pending vendor confirmation):

• Restrict network exposure of any Azure Billing integration or ingress path to trusted source ranges only. Because AV:N applies, reducing reachability directly reduces exploitability.
• Enforce authentication and integrity verification at the perimeter for all billing-feeding inputs — do not rely solely on whatever control the vulnerable component performs.
• Apply least privilege to all identities and service principals that can read or write billing, usage, subscription, or entitlement data; audit existing role assignments for anything beyond necessary.
• Enable and centralize Azure Activity Log, billing, and sign-in logging, and alert on the detection rules above.
• Increase monitoring specifically around billing write operations and any role or entitlement changes originating from unauthenticated or unexpected principals.

2) Patch / upgrade steps:

• Watch for an authoritative Microsoft security advisory or CVE entry update that names the fixed service component or version. The CVE record provides no fixed version.
• Once a fixed version or service update is published, schedule it with priority given the CVSS 10.0 rating and unauthenticated attack vector.
• Verify remediation by re-auditing Billing-related access and confirming the authenticity-verification control is enforced at the vendor-provided fix level.

3) Long-term hardening:

• Treat Billing data as an authorization input and apply integrity verification to every internal hop, not just the external boundary.
• Onboard all incoming and mutually consumed billing data to a positive trust model: verify origin, signature, and integrity before acting on it.
• Implement continuous cloud security posture management (CSPM) checks against unauthenticated ingress paths into financial/entitlement systems.
• Exercise an incident response plan for unauthorized billing mutation, including dispute and rollback procedures.
• Track the CVE for clarification: the absence of an affected version range is itself a scoping risk and should be raised with the vendor.

References

1. NVD — CVE-2026-62874: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62874
2. MITRE CWE-345 — Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/345.html
3. Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) advisories portal (monitor for vendor advisory naming the fixed version): https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide
4. CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog — no entry for CVE-2026-62874 at time of writing: https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
5. FIRST.org EPSS — no score yet assigned for CVE-2026-62874: https://www.first.org/epss/

Threat actor / in-the-wild note: No exploit-in-the-wild evidence, no threat-actor campaign attribution, no KEV listing, no PoC, and no Nuclei template exist for CVE-2026-62874 in the provided data. All detection content above is defensive/inferential and should be tuned to reduce false positives from legitimate billing administration before deployment.