CVE-2026-44561: open-webui: auth bypass exposes private group channels

# Deactivated Channel Members Retain Full Access to Group/DM Channels ## Affected Component Channel membership authorization check: - `backend/open_webui/models/channels.py` (lines 663-673, `is_user_channel_member`) - Used at 15 locations in `backend/open_webui/routers/channels.py` ## Affected Versions Current main branch (commit `6fdd19bf1`) and likely all versions with the group/DM channel feature. ## Description The `is_user_channel_member` function checks whether a `ChannelMember` row exists but does not check the `is_active` field. When a user is deactivated from a group or DM channel (removed by the channel owner, or leaves voluntarily), their membership row persists with `is_active=False` and `status='left'`. Because the authorization check ignores this field, the deactivated user retains full read and write access to the channel via direct API calls. The channel correctly disappears from the deactivated user's channel list (the listing query at `get_channels_by_user_id` properly filters on `is_active`), but all 15 message-level endpoints in the router rely on `is_user_channel_member` for authorization, which does not filter on `is_active`. ```python # models/channels.py:663 — missing is_active check def is_user_channel_member(self, channel_id, user_id, db=None): membership = db.query(ChannelMember).filter( ChannelMember.channel_id == channel_id, ChannelMember.user_id == user_id, ).first() return membership is not None # True even when is_active=False ``` Compare with `get_channel_by_id_and_user_id` (line 778) which correctly checks `ChannelMember.is_active.is_(True)`. ## CVSS 3.1 Breakdown | Metric | Value | Rationale | |--------|-------|-----------| | Attack Vector | Network (N) | Exploited remotely via API calls | | Attack Complexity | Low (L) | No special conditions beyond knowing the channel ID (which the user had as a former member) | | Privileges Required | Low (L) | Requires a valid user account and prior channel membership | | User Interaction | None (N) | No victim interaction required | | Scope | Unchanged (U) | Impact is within the same authorization boundary (the channel) | | Confidentiality | Low (L) | Can read messages in a channel the user should no longer access | | Integrity | Low (L) | Can post, edit, and delete messages in the channel | | Availability | None (N) | No denial of service | ## Attack Scenario 1. User A and User B are members of a private group channel. 2. The channel owner removes User B (or User B leaves). User B's membership is set to `is_active=False, status='left'`. 3. The channel disappears from User B's UI — but User B noted the channel ID while they were a member. 4. User B calls the API directly: - `GET /api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages` — reads all messages, including those posted after deactivation - `POST /api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages/post` — posts new messages - `POST /api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages/{id}/update` — edits messages - `DELETE /api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages/{id}/delete` — deletes messages 5. All requests succeed because `is_user_channel_member` returns `True`. ## Impact - Deactivated users can continue reading all new messages posted after their removal (confidentiality breach) - Deactivated users can post, edit, and delete messages (integrity breach) - The deactivation mechanism provides a false sense of security — channel owners believe removed users have lost access ## Preconditions - Channels feature must be enabled (disabled by default) - Attacker must have a valid user account - Attacker must have been a member of the channel at some point (and thus knows the channel ID) ## Recommended Fix Add `is_active` filtering to `is_user_channel_member`: ```python def is_user_channel_member(self, channel_id, user_id, db=None): membership = db.query(ChannelMember).filter( ChannelMember.channel_id == channel_id, ChannelMember.user_id == user_id, ChannelMember.is_active.is_(True), ).first() return membership is not None ``` This aligns it with the existing `get_channel_by_id_and_user_id` method which already applies this filter correctly.

A recently removed employee — aware of an internal AI strategy channel in Open WebUI — retains their platform account and JWT token. Despite seeing the channel disappear from their UI, they use the channel ID recorded during active membership to query the REST API directly: `GET /api/v1/channels/abc123/messages`. The request succeeds because `is_user_channel_member` returns True for their `is_active=False` membership record. They silently read weeks of subsequent LLM-assisted brainstorming sessions and competitive intelligence discussions posted after their removal. To maximize damage, they post a fabricated decision attributed to the team, then delete it before anyone notices — all without triggering any platform-level alerts, since the authorization check never fails.