CVE-2026-70482: Open WebUI: OAuth token exchange enables takeover
GHSA-rq84-p6rr-vf89 HIGH PoC AVAILABLE CISA: ATTENDOpen WebUI's optional OAuth token-exchange endpoint accepts any provider access token and, because it only checks token validity via a userinfo call rather than confirming which client the token was minted for, will happily log an attacker in as any existing user whose token they can obtain — including administrators. On Google, GitHub, Okta and default self-hosted OIDC, an attacker just needs the victim to sign into an unrelated, self-service-registered OAuth app on the same provider; no interaction with Open WebUI itself is required, and a working PoC demonstrating full session takeover is public. This is scoped by the fact that the feature (`ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE`) is off by default, and EPSS sits at a modest 0.34% (top 73rd percentile) with no KEV listing and a CISA SSVC decision of ATTEND, so this is not a mass-exploitation scenario — it's a targeted-account risk for the subset of deployments that enabled the feature. Patch to 0.11.0 and, critically, explicitly set `OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS` — the fix is opt-in and an upgrade alone leaves the endpoint exactly as vulnerable as before. For Google, Microsoft Entra ID, GitHub and Feishu, which don't support RFC 7662 introspection, there is no safe configuration at all: disable token exchange for those providers entirely.
What is the risk?
High severity (CVSS 8.1) with a low bar to exploit once preconditions are met: no privileges required, only user interaction from the victim (signing into an unrelated app), and a public PoC exists. Exploitability is gated almost entirely by configuration — the feature is disabled by default, so exposure is limited to operators who explicitly enabled `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE` for mobile/native clients or third-party integrations. Within that population, risk is severe: no role gating means an attacker who obtains an administrator's provider token gets an administrator session in Open WebUI, and the victim has zero visibility into the compromise since they never touch the vulnerable endpoint. EPSS (0.34%) and absence from CISA KEV reflect that this is not being mass-exploited in the wild, consistent with it being a targeted, configuration-gated flaw rather than an internet-wide sweep vector.
How does the attack unfold?
What systems are affected?
| Package | Ecosystem | Vulnerable Range | Patched |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open WebUI | pip | >= 0.8.0, < 0.11.0 | 0.11.0 |
Do you use Open WebUI? You're affected.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
1 step-
1) Upgrade to Open WebUI 0.11.0 or later. 2) If
ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True, you MUST also setOAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDSto the explicit allowlist of trusted client IDs — the introspection check is opt-in and an unset list leaves the endpoint exploitable even post-patch. 3) For providers that do not support RFC 7662 token introspection — Google, Microsoft Entra ID, GitHub, Feishu — there is no safe configuration; leave token exchange disabled for those providers. 4) If not currently using token exchange, verifyENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGEis unset/False (the safe default). 5) Detection: audit logs/provider-side records fortoken_exchangeendpoint calls (POST /api/v1/auths/oauth/{provider}/token/exchange) where the resulting session's user does not match the expected calling application, and review administrator sessions for logins that bypassed the normal OAuth callback flow. 6) Rotate credentials and review admin session history for any deployment that ran with token exchange enabled and no trusted-client allowlist prior to patching.
What does CISA's SSVC say?
Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.
How is it classified?
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
This CVE is relevant to:
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-70482?
Open WebUI's optional OAuth token-exchange endpoint accepts any provider access token and, because it only checks token validity via a userinfo call rather than confirming which client the token was minted for, will happily log an attacker in as any existing user whose token they can obtain — including administrators. On Google, GitHub, Okta and default self-hosted OIDC, an attacker just needs the victim to sign into an unrelated, self-service-registered OAuth app on the same provider; no interaction with Open WebUI itself is required, and a working PoC demonstrating full session takeover is public. This is scoped by the fact that the feature (`ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE`) is off by default, and EPSS sits at a modest 0.34% (top 73rd percentile) with no KEV listing and a CISA SSVC decision of ATTEND, so this is not a mass-exploitation scenario — it's a targeted-account risk for the subset of deployments that enabled the feature. Patch to 0.11.0 and, critically, explicitly set `OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS` — the fix is opt-in and an upgrade alone leaves the endpoint exactly as vulnerable as before. For Google, Microsoft Entra ID, GitHub and Feishu, which don't support RFC 7662 introspection, there is no safe configuration at all: disable token exchange for those providers entirely.
Is CVE-2026-70482 actively exploited?
Proof-of-concept exploit code is publicly available for CVE-2026-70482, increasing the risk of exploitation.
How to fix CVE-2026-70482?
1) Upgrade to Open WebUI 0.11.0 or later. 2) If `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True`, you MUST also set `OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS` to the explicit allowlist of trusted client IDs — the introspection check is opt-in and an unset list leaves the endpoint exploitable even post-patch. 3) For providers that do not support RFC 7662 token introspection — Google, Microsoft Entra ID, GitHub, Feishu — there is no safe configuration; leave token exchange disabled for those providers. 4) If not currently using token exchange, verify `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE` is unset/False (the safe default). 5) Detection: audit logs/provider-side records for `token_exchange` endpoint calls (`POST /api/v1/auths/oauth/{provider}/token/exchange`) where the resulting session's user does not match the expected calling application, and review administrator sessions for logins that bypassed the normal OAuth callback flow. 6) Rotate credentials and review admin session history for any deployment that ran with token exchange enabled and no trusted-client allowlist prior to patching.
What systems are affected by CVE-2026-70482?
This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: Self-hosted LLM chat UIs with OAuth/SSO integration (Open WebUI), Multi-tenant AI deployments with role-based admin consoles, AI platforms exposing alternate (non-browser-callback) OAuth token flows for mobile/native clients.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-70482?
CVE-2026-70482 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.46%.
What is the AI security impact?
Affected AI Architectures
MITRE ATLAS Techniques
AML.T0012 Valid Accounts AML.T0049 Exploit Public-Facing Application AML.T0091.000 Application Access Token Compliance Controls Affected
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
## Summary The OAuth token exchange endpoint accepts a raw provider access token and validates it by calling the provider's userinfo endpoint. A userinfo endpoint reports only that a token is valid, never which OAuth client it was issued to, and the endpoint performed no audience or client check of its own. Anyone holding an access token minted for any client registered with the same provider could exchange it for an Open WebUI session as that token's user, including applications the operator does not control and has never authorised. ## Preconditions - `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True`. Disabled by default, so a stock deployment is not affected. - The victim already has an Open WebUI account. The endpoint does not create users. - The attacker can obtain a provider access token for the victim, typically by having them sign in to an unrelated OAuth application on the same provider. On public providers, registering that application is self-service. - The subject identifier the attacker's client observes matches the one stored on the victim's account. Google, GitHub, Okta and self-hosted OIDC servers in default configuration issue a subject that is stable across all clients and are directly affected. Microsoft Entra ID issues per-application subjects, so the match fails there unless `OAUTH_MERGE_ACCOUNTS_BY_EMAIL` is enabled or `OAUTH_SUB_CLAIM` points at a globally stable claim such as `oid`. - `OAUTH_ALLOWED_DOMAINS` is enforced on this endpoint but does not constrain the attack, because the impersonated user is a legitimate member of an allowed domain. ## Impact Full account takeover of any user whose provider access token the attacker can obtain. The endpoint applies no role gating, so the issued session carries the target account's role, and a targeted administrator yields an administrator session. The victim never interacts with Open WebUI and has no opportunity to notice. The standard OAuth callback is not affected. It obtains its token through an authorization-code exchange authenticated with the client secret, so the token is inherently bound to Open WebUI's own client, and the ID token's audience is validated. ## Fix Fixed in 0.11.0. The endpoint now resolves which OAuth client a presented token was issued to through RFC 7662 token introspection, and rejects tokens minted for any client not named in `OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS`. Only the introspected `client_id` is honoured; the `aud` field is ignored, because it names intended resource servers rather than the issuing client and several providers let any client place another client's identifier there. **Upgrading alone is not sufficient.** The check is opt-in: with `OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS` unset the endpoint behaves as it did before, so any deployment running with `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True` must also set that list. It is a deploy-time environment variable and cannot be changed from the admin interface, so a compromised administrator session cannot widen the trust boundary at runtime. Providers that do not implement RFC 7662 introspection, including Google, Microsoft Entra ID, GitHub and Feishu, cannot be restricted this way at all. **On those, token exchange has no safe configuration and should be left disabled.** ## Root cause - `backend/open_webui/routers/auths.py`, `token_exchange` (`POST /api/v1/auths/oauth/{provider}/token/exchange`) Token exchange skips the authorization-code step entirely and trusts a token supplied by the caller. The only validation performed was a userinfo lookup, which answers whether a token is valid rather than who issued it, so the endpoint had no way to distinguish a token minted for Open WebUI from one minted for an unrelated application. ## Proof of concept Reproduced against a mock OIDC provider serving two tokens for the same end user, minted for two different clients, with `OAUTH_ALLOWED_DOMAINS=corp.example` actively enforced. | Case | Token | Result | | --- | --- | --- | | Control | not recognised by the provider | 400 rejected | | Outsider's own account, non-allowed domain | minted for `attacker-evil-app` | 403 blocked by domain allowlist | | Victim's account, foreign client | minted for `attacker-evil-app` | 200, session issued for `victim@corp.example` | The issued session token was confirmed usable: `GET /api/v1/auths/` returned 200 authenticated as the victim. The provider log recorded the token as minted for `client_id='attacker-evil-app'`, while Open WebUI's own client is `openwebui-client-id`. ## Credits Reported by @Classic298.
Exploitation Scenario
An attacker targets a CISO or platform administrator who uses Open WebUI internally with `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE` enabled for a companion mobile app, backed by the org's Google or Okta SSO. The attacker builds or self-registers an unrelated OAuth application on that same provider (trivial on Google/GitHub) and lures the administrator into signing into it — a routine, unsuspicious action. The attacker now holds a valid provider access token minted for their own app but carrying the administrator's identity (subject claim). They POST that token directly to Open WebUI's `/api/v1/auths/oauth/{provider}/token/exchange` endpoint; Open WebUI calls the provider's userinfo endpoint, sees the token is valid and matches an existing account, and issues a full session — with no check on which client the token belongs to. The attacker now holds an authenticated administrator session in Open WebUI, with no alert or interaction visible to the victim, and can manage users, connected model backends, and stored credentials at will.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-287 — Improper Authentication: When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
- [Architecture and Design] Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N References
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-rq84-p6rr-vf89
- github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/b190dcf3caa00dc8b7b9c7312828298d9143f60d
- github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/c4332be71e6e9c314e8a13b9d2819a6932561630
- github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.11.0
- github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-rq84-p6rr-vf89
Timeline
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2026-44551 9.1 open-webui: LDAP auth bypass — full account takeover
Same package: open-webui CVE-2026-45672 8.8 open-webui: code exec gate bypass via API endpoint
Same package: open-webui CVE-2026-44552 8.7 open-webui: Redis cache poisoning enables cross-instance tool hijack
Same package: open-webui CVE-2025-64495 8.7 Open WebUI: XSS-to-RCE via malicious prompt injection
Same package: open-webui CVE-2026-45315 8.7 open-webui: stored XSS → JWT theft and admin takeover
Same package: open-webui