Skip to content

GHSA-26gm-93rw-cchf CVE-2026-29070 PYSEC-2026-2693

Open WebUI has unauthorized deletion of knowledge files

High PyPI
Severity
5.4 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.26%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 17.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.8.6
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Summary

An access control check is missing when deleting a file from a knowledge base. The only check being done is that the user has write access to the knowledge base (or is admin), but NOT that the file actually belongs to this knowledge base. It is thus possible to delete arbitrary files from arbitrary knowledge bases (as long as one knows the file id)

Details

The source code at https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/blob/main/backend/open_webui/routers/knowledge.py#L803 does not properly validate that the file being deleted belongs to the current knowledge base:

@router.post("/{id}/file/remove", response_model=Optional[KnowledgeFilesResponse])
def remove_file_from_knowledge_by_id(
    id: str,
    form_data: KnowledgeFileIdForm,
    delete_file: bool = Query(True),
    user=Depends(get_verified_user),
    db: Session = Depends(get_session),
):
    knowledge = Knowledges.get_knowledge_by_id(id=id, db=db)
    [...]
    # Note  : Access control check on the knowledge base
    if (
        knowledge.user_id != user.id
        and not AccessGrants.has_access(
            user_id=user.id,
            resource_type="knowledge",
            resource_id=knowledge.id,
            permission="write",
            db=db,
        )
        and user.role != "admin"
    ):
        raise HTTPException(
            status_code=status.HTTP_400_BAD_REQUEST,
            detail=ERROR_MESSAGES.ACCESS_PROHIBITED,
        )

    file = Files.get_file_by_id(form_data.file_id, db=db)
    [...]
    # Note : No checks on the file

    if delete_file:
        try:
            # Remove the file's collection from vector database
            file_collection = f"file-{form_data.file_id}"
            if VECTOR_DB_CLIENT.has_collection(collection_name=file_collection):
                VECTOR_DB_CLIENT.delete_collection(collection_name=file_collection)
        except Exception as e:
            log.debug("This was most likely caused by bypassing embedding processing")
            log.debug(e)
            pass

        # Delete file from database
        Files.delete_file_by_id(form_data.file_id, db=db)
[...]

PoC

Victim has a knowledge base with a file (id: 9db6dcee-bb3b-483e-aaf3-310fda366af1) Attacker creates their own collection (id: dde9e2b6-21c9-4aa1-a1cf-8cb0e4392f2b) Attacker deletes the victim file from their own collection:

POST /api/v1/knowledge/dde9e2b6-21c9-4aa1-a1cf-8cb0e4392f2b/file/remove HTTP/1.1
Host: gaius-neo-val.fr.space.corp
Authorization: Bearer eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1[...]nHiaod-3vfNE0
[...]

{"file_id":"9db6dcee-bb3b-483e-aaf3-310fda366af1"}

-----

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
[...]

The file is then deleted from the victim's knowledge base.

Impact

Arbitrary file deletion

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
< 0.8.6
0.8.6

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

open-webui PyPI → 0.8.6

pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.8.6"
poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.8.6"
uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.8.6"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.4

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-wvm9-9g5j-623f
Open WebUI: Users denied by the OAuth role policy can still sign in via token exchange
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-4qg5-cxx4-g927
Open WebUI: Users denied by the OAuth domain allowlist or role policy can still sign in via token exchange
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-jqhh-cjmq-vmv6
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can hang the server via a cyclic chat message history
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-5x7x-4c3c-qf5w
Open WebUI: Server-side fetches reach blocked and internal hosts via unvalidated HTTP redirect targets
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-3cgp-3cqx-j8w2
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can hang the server via message deletion in a cyclic chat tree
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-34r3-9m95-vq73
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can reach the Azure platform channel via server-side web fetch
High Also affects open-webui
GHSA-2724-6cpj-gf3v
Open WebUI: Non-admin users can delete admin-owned external knowledge connections via knowledge base deletion
High Also affects open-webui
GHSA-3pf7-q2g3-wj28
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can inject chats into another user's folder via chat completions
Medium Also affects open-webui
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor