GHSA-2724-6cpj-gf3v CVE-2026-87998 PYSEC-2026-4115
Open WebUI: Non-admin users can delete admin-owned external knowledge connections via knowledge base deletion
- Severity
- 7.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.49%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.85% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
0.11.1- Upgrade open-webui to this version or later
Description
Summary
External knowledge connections are created and owned by administrators, and are shared by every external knowledge base bound to them. Deleting an external knowledge base also removed that connection from the instance configuration, with no check on the caller's role and no check for other knowledge bases still using it. Any authenticated user holding a write grant on a single external knowledge base could therefore wipe a shared connection that other knowledge bases depend on, and the dedicated administrator route for deleting a connection explicitly refuses that same operation while the connection is still in use.
Preconditions
The deployment uses external knowledge bases, backed by the qdrant, milvus or pgvector external providers. Instances with only local knowledge bases are not affected.
An administrator created at least one external connection and at least one external knowledge base bound to it. Both of those actions are admin-only.
The attacker is an ordinary authenticated user holding a write grant on one of those external knowledge bases. A read grant is not enough, and an unrelated user cannot reach the route at all.
The damage scales with sharing. It is worst when one connection backs several knowledge bases, because deleting a single knowledge base destroys the connection for all of them.
Impact
An ordinary user removes instance-wide configuration that only administrators can create or manage. Every other external knowledge base bound to the deleted connection keeps its stored connection id and stops working: retrieval against it fails with "External knowledge connection not found", so those knowledge bases return nothing in chat until an administrator recreates the connection by hand. The stored credential goes with it, and connection API responses strip credentials, so an administrator who did not keep the key elsewhere cannot restore the connection without obtaining it again.
Nothing is disclosed to the attacker and the external vector store itself is untouched. What is lost is Open WebUI's own connection configuration, and the availability of the knowledge bases that depend on it.
Fix
Fixed in 0.11.1 by https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/28113. Deleting an external knowledge base now clears its connection only when the caller is an administrator and the knowledge base being deleted is the last one referencing that connection, matching the dedicated connection delete route. Upgrading resolves the issue with no configuration change required.
Root cause
Affected component: the knowledge base delete handler in backend/open_webui/routers/knowledge.py, reached through DELETE /api/v1/knowledge/{id}/delete.
Affected setup: every release from 0.10.0, where external knowledge connections were introduced, up to and including 0.11.0.
The handler authorized the caller against the knowledge base, which a write grant satisfies, and then performed a second, unrelated operation against global configuration in the same request. That second step carried no authorization of its own. It neither required the administrator role that creating a connection requires, nor counted the other knowledge bases still bound to the connection. The dedicated route DELETE /api/v1/knowledge/external/connections/{id} already performed both checks, so an outcome an administrator was blocked from was reachable by a non-administrator through the knowledge base route.
Proof of concept
Reproduced against a local instance on 0.11.0 with default settings, and against 0.11.1 for comparison.
An administrator created one external connection and two external knowledge bases bound to it, then granted a plain user write access on the first knowledge base. As that user:
DELETE /api/v1/knowledge/{KB_A}/delete
Authorization: Bearer <user token>
On 0.11.0 the request returns 200 true. The administrator connection list then returns zero connections, the second knowledge base still carries the deleted connection id, and retrieving from it raises "External knowledge connection not found".
On 0.11.1 the same request deletes the knowledge base, the connection list still returns the connection, and the second knowledge base is unaffected. An administrator deleting the last remaining knowledge base on that connection still clears it, so the intended cleanup is preserved.
Credits
@Bellingham-max, for reporting the missing authorization on the shared connection teardown.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| open-webui | >= 0.10.0, < 0.11.1 |
0.11.1 |
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 → 0.11.1
- pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.11.1"- poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.11.1"- uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.11.1"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
- Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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-3pf7-q2g3-wj28 Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can inject chats into another user's folder via chat completions | Medium | Also affects open-webui |
| GHSA-4v28-j6q3-5m4r Open WebUI: SSRF into internal services via DNS rebinding in the Playwright web loader | High | Also affects open-webui |
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