GHSA-2xcx-75h9-vr9h CVE-2026-25631
n8n's domain allowlist bypass enables credential exfiltration
Medium
npm
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.31%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.81% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
1.121.0- Upgrade n8n to this version or later
Description
Impact
A vulnerability in the HTTP Request node's credential domain validation allowed an authenticated attacker to send requests with credentials to unintended domains, potentially leading to credential exfiltration.
This only might affect user who have credentials that use wildcard domain patterns (e.g., *.example.com) in the "Allowed domains" setting.
Patches
This issue is fixed in version 1.121.0 and later. All users are strongly encouraged to upgrade.
Workarounds
Until projects can upgrade:
- Replace wildcard domain patterns with explicit domain listings in HTTP Request credentials
- Review and restrict workflow creation/modification permissions to trusted users only
- Audit existing workflows using HTTP Request nodes with domain-restricted credentials
n8n has adopted CVSS 4.0 as primary score for all security advisories. CVSS 3.1 vector strings are provided for backward compatibility.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| n8n | < 1.121.0 |
1.121.0 |
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.
n8n npm → 1.121.0
- npm
npm install n8n@1.121.0- yarn
yarn add n8n@1.121.0- pnpm
pnpm add n8n@1.121.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-522: Insufficiently Protected Credentials
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
- Architecture and Design: Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
- Implementation: Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-v98v-ff95-f3cp n8n Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Expression Injection | High Known exploited | Also affects n8n |
| GHSA-qgpw-8g46-w95v n8n: Git Node branch.<name>.remote Config Key Bypasses Sandbox Path Restriction, Enabling Local Git Repository Read | Medium | Also affects n8n |
| GHSA-65xw-2v52-jhxc n8n: Cross-User Active Workflow ID and Lifecycle Event Disclosure via Missing userId Filter | Medium | Also affects n8n |
| GHSA-pq6c-vh67-xpm3 n8n: Log Streaming Event Destinations Decrypt Generic-Auth Credentials Without Ownership Check | Medium | Also affects n8n |
| GHSA-cqr2-h44g-v75v n8n: Cross-Tenant Project-Member PII Disclosure via Missing Per-Project Scope Check on Role Assignment Endpoints | Medium | Also affects n8n |
| GHSA-pf83-w3f9-8m37 n8n: Disabled OIDC SSO Endpoints Remain Active and Issue Valid Sessions | Medium | Also affects n8n |
| GHSA-6xcw-7xm6-48c6 n8n: Expression Sandbox Escape via Shared Builtin Tampering and Code-Printer Injection Leads to Code Execution | High | Also affects n8n |
| GHSA-34ff-336r-5q23 n8n: Domain-Restriction Bypass via Unguarded Model-Search Endpoint in OpenAI Chat Model Node | Medium | Also affects n8n |
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