CVE-2026-54017

GHSA-r2wg-2mcr-66rv HIGH
Published June 17, 2026

### Summary The terminal-server reverse proxy in `backend/open_webui/routers/terminals.py` does not fully confine the user-controlled `path` segment before forwarding it to an admin-configured terminal server. An authenticated user who has been granted access to a terminal server can craft `path`...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package Ecosystem Vulnerable Range Patched
Open WebUI pip <= 0.9.5 0.9.6
141.4K Pushed 4d ago 77% patched ~3d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use Open WebUI? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
7.7 / 10
EPSS
0.0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Higher than 12% of all CVEs
Exploitation Status
No known exploitation
Sophistication
N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV AC PR UI S C I A
AV Network
AC Low
PR Low
UI None
S Changed
C High
I None
A None

What should I do?

Patch available

Update Open WebUI to version 0.9.6

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-54017?

### Summary The terminal-server reverse proxy in `backend/open_webui/routers/terminals.py` does not fully confine the user-controlled `path` segment before forwarding it to an admin-configured terminal server. An authenticated user who has been granted access to a terminal server can craft `path` values containing encoded `../` traversal sequences that escape the intended path (or policy) scope on that server, reaching unintended endpoints and files on the terminal-server host. Where the terminal server fans requests out to internal services, this also gives SSRF-style reach into those services. This is a separate code path from the `/api/v1/retrieval/process/web` SSRF (GHSA-c6xv-rcvw-v685), with its own input. Two distinct vectors are consolidated here: 1. Raw path forwarding / single-encoded traversal (original report). 2. A bypass of the subsequently-added `_sanitize_proxy_path` mitigation using double-encoded dots (`%252e%252e`). The attacker-controlled input is the request `path`, supplied by the non-admin user, not anything an administrator configures, so this is not an admin-trust / Rule-9 situation. ### Affected code The proxy route forwards an arbitrary trailing path to the configured terminal server: ```python # routers/terminals.py @router.api_route('/{server_id}/{path:path}', methods=PROXY_METHODS) async def proxy_terminal(server_id, path, request, user=Depends(get_verified_user)): ... safe_path = _sanitize_proxy_path(path) if safe_path is None: return JSONResponse({'error': 'Invalid path'}, status_code=400) target_url = f'{base_url}/{safe_path}' policy_id = connection.get('policy_id') if policy_id: target_url = f'{base_url}/p/{policy_id}/{safe_path}' ``` Access requires `has_connection_access(user, connection, ...)`, i.e. a non-admin user the administrator has granted to that terminal server. ### Vector 1 — single-encoded traversal (original) The path was originally concatenated to the base URL with no sanitization (`target_url = f"{base_url}/{path}"`), so single-encoded traversal escaped the intended scope: ``` GET /api/v1/terminals/server1/..%2F..%2F..%2Finternal-api/secrets # proxied to: {base_url}/../../../internal-api/secrets ``` This vector is closed at HEAD: `_sanitize_proxy_path` now URL-decodes once, runs `posixpath.normpath`, strips leading slashes, and rejects results beginning with `..` (`unquote('..%2F..%2F') -> '../../' -> normpath -> '../..'` -> rejected). ### Vector 2 — double-encoded bypass of `_sanitize_proxy_path` `_sanitize_proxy_path` decodes the path only once before the `..` check, so a double-encoded payload survives: ```python def _sanitize_proxy_path(path: str) -> str | None: decoded = unquote(path) # single decode pass only normalized = posixpath.normpath(decoded) cleaned = normalized.lstrip('/') if cleaned.startswith('..') or cleaned == '.': return None ... ``` `unquote('%252e%252e/secret')` yields `%2e%2e/secret` (not `..`), which `normpath` leaves unchanged and which does not start with `..`, so it passes the check. The proxy then forwards `{base_url}/%2e%2e/secret`, and the upstream terminal server decodes `%2e%2e` into `..` and resolves the traversal the check was meant to prevent. ``` GET /api/v1/terminals/server1/%252e%252e/%252e%252e/sensitive-file # passes _sanitize_proxy_path as %2e%2e/%2e%2e/sensitive-file # upstream decodes -> ../../sensitive-file ``` The `policy_id` form (`{base_url}/p/{policy_id}/{safe_path}`) is the higher-impact target: traversal escapes the policy namespace and reaches other policies or the terminal-server root. ### Impact An authenticated user with access to a terminal server can escape the intended path/policy scope on that server, reaching unintended endpoints and files, and, where the terminal server routes onward to internal services, reach those services. CWE-22 (Path Traversal) and CWE-918 (SSRF). ### Fix Decode the proxy path until it is stable before normalising and checking, so no depth of encoding can smuggle a traversal sequence past the check to be re-decoded upstream: ```python decoded = path for _ in range(8): once = unquote(decoded) if once == decoded: break decoded = once normalized = posixpath.normpath(decoded) cleaned = normalized.lstrip('/') if cleaned.startswith('..') or cleaned == '.': return None ``` This rejects `%2e%2e`, `%252e%252e`, `%25252e%25252e`, `..%2f..%2f`, etc., while leaving legitimate paths (including singly-encoded characters such as `%20`) intact. ### Credits - **Tulgaaaaaaaa** — original report (terminal-proxy path SSRF / single-encoded traversal). - **sermikr0** — double-encoded (`%252e%252e`) bypass of the `_sanitize_proxy_path` mitigation.

Is CVE-2026-54017 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-54017 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-54017?

Update to patched version: Open WebUI 0.9.6.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-54017?

CVE-2026-54017 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.7 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.04%.

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

### Summary The terminal-server reverse proxy in `backend/open_webui/routers/terminals.py` does not fully confine the user-controlled `path` segment before forwarding it to an admin-configured terminal server. An authenticated user who has been granted access to a terminal server can craft `path` values containing encoded `../` traversal sequences that escape the intended path (or policy) scope on that server, reaching unintended endpoints and files on the terminal-server host. Where the terminal server fans requests out to internal services, this also gives SSRF-style reach into those services. This is a separate code path from the `/api/v1/retrieval/process/web` SSRF (GHSA-c6xv-rcvw-v685), with its own input. Two distinct vectors are consolidated here: 1. Raw path forwarding / single-encoded traversal (original report). 2. A bypass of the subsequently-added `_sanitize_proxy_path` mitigation using double-encoded dots (`%252e%252e`). The attacker-controlled input is the request `path`, supplied by the non-admin user, not anything an administrator configures, so this is not an admin-trust / Rule-9 situation. ### Affected code The proxy route forwards an arbitrary trailing path to the configured terminal server: ```python # routers/terminals.py @router.api_route('/{server_id}/{path:path}', methods=PROXY_METHODS) async def proxy_terminal(server_id, path, request, user=Depends(get_verified_user)): ... safe_path = _sanitize_proxy_path(path) if safe_path is None: return JSONResponse({'error': 'Invalid path'}, status_code=400) target_url = f'{base_url}/{safe_path}' policy_id = connection.get('policy_id') if policy_id: target_url = f'{base_url}/p/{policy_id}/{safe_path}' ``` Access requires `has_connection_access(user, connection, ...)`, i.e. a non-admin user the administrator has granted to that terminal server. ### Vector 1 — single-encoded traversal (original) The path was originally concatenated to the base URL with no sanitization (`target_url = f"{base_url}/{path}"`), so single-encoded traversal escaped the intended scope: ``` GET /api/v1/terminals/server1/..%2F..%2F..%2Finternal-api/secrets # proxied to: {base_url}/../../../internal-api/secrets ``` This vector is closed at HEAD: `_sanitize_proxy_path` now URL-decodes once, runs `posixpath.normpath`, strips leading slashes, and rejects results beginning with `..` (`unquote('..%2F..%2F') -> '../../' -> normpath -> '../..'` -> rejected). ### Vector 2 — double-encoded bypass of `_sanitize_proxy_path` `_sanitize_proxy_path` decodes the path only once before the `..` check, so a double-encoded payload survives: ```python def _sanitize_proxy_path(path: str) -> str | None: decoded = unquote(path) # single decode pass only normalized = posixpath.normpath(decoded) cleaned = normalized.lstrip('/') if cleaned.startswith('..') or cleaned == '.': return None ... ``` `unquote('%252e%252e/secret')` yields `%2e%2e/secret` (not `..`), which `normpath` leaves unchanged and which does not start with `..`, so it passes the check. The proxy then forwards `{base_url}/%2e%2e/secret`, and the upstream terminal server decodes `%2e%2e` into `..` and resolves the traversal the check was meant to prevent. ``` GET /api/v1/terminals/server1/%252e%252e/%252e%252e/sensitive-file # passes _sanitize_proxy_path as %2e%2e/%2e%2e/sensitive-file # upstream decodes -> ../../sensitive-file ``` The `policy_id` form (`{base_url}/p/{policy_id}/{safe_path}`) is the higher-impact target: traversal escapes the policy namespace and reaches other policies or the terminal-server root. ### Impact An authenticated user with access to a terminal server can escape the intended path/policy scope on that server, reaching unintended endpoints and files, and, where the terminal server routes onward to internal services, reach those services. CWE-22 (Path Traversal) and CWE-918 (SSRF). ### Fix Decode the proxy path until it is stable before normalising and checking, so no depth of encoding can smuggle a traversal sequence past the check to be re-decoded upstream: ```python decoded = path for _ in range(8): once = unquote(decoded) if once == decoded: break decoded = once normalized = posixpath.normpath(decoded) cleaned = normalized.lstrip('/') if cleaned.startswith('..') or cleaned == '.': return None ``` This rejects `%2e%2e`, `%252e%252e`, `%25252e%25252e`, `..%2f..%2f`, etc., while leaving legitimate paths (including singly-encoded characters such as `%20`) intact. ### Credits - **Tulgaaaaaaaa** — original report (terminal-proxy path SSRF / single-encoded traversal). - **sermikr0** — double-encoded (`%252e%252e`) bypass of the `_sanitize_proxy_path` mitigation.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-22 — Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'): The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

  • [Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
  • [Architecture and Design] For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Timeline

Published
June 17, 2026
Last Modified
June 17, 2026
First Seen
June 17, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities