GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v CVE-2026-56682
9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header
- Severity
- 5.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.50%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-307 Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts
- CWE-807 Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
- Fix
0.5.8- Upgrade 9router to this version or later
Description
Summary
9router enforces a progressive login lockout (5 failed attempts → temporary 30s+ lock) keyed on the client IP. The client IP used for this limiter is taken from the X-9r-Real-Ip request header, which is intended to be set only by the bundled custom-server.js layer from the unspoofable TCP socket address. In deployment modes where requests reach Next.js directly, a remote attacker controls this header and can assign a unique value to every request. Because each distinct header value maps to a fresh limiter bucket, the lockout never triggers, enabling unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint. This was reproduced against a live instance: a fixed header value was locked out (429) after 5 attempts, while rotating the header produced unlimited 401 responses with no lockout.
Affected Component
src/lib/auth/loginLimiter.jsgetClientIp()— derives the rate-limit bucket key from the client-suppliedX-9r-Real-IpheadercheckLock()/recordFail()— per-IP progressive lockout (MAX_FAILS_BEFORE_LOCK = 5)
src/app/api/auth/login/route.js— login endpoint protected by the above limiter
Root Cause
The brute-force protection partitions failed-attempt counters by client IP, but obtains that IP from a client-controllable HTTP header rather than from the transport layer. getClientIp() returns the value of X-9r-Real-Ip directly. The design assumes this header is produced and sanitized only by the trusted custom-server.js wrapper. When the application is served without that wrapper, the header passes through unmodified, so the attacker chooses the bucket key. Since the lockout is per-bucket, assigning a new value per request keeps every counter below the threshold:
Untrusted Client Input
↓
X-9r-Real-Ip: <attacker-chosen, rotated each request>
↓
getClientIp() → distinct bucket per request
↓
recordFail()/checkLock() → threshold (5) never reached
↓
unlimited 401 attempts, no 429 lockout
Attack Scenario
-
The instance is deployed in a mode that does not use
custom-server.js, and the login endpoint is reachable by the attacker (the default bind is0.0.0.0). -
The attacker submits password guesses to
POST /api/auth/login, setting a differentX-9r-Real-Ipvalue on each request (e.g.,10.0.0.1,10.0.0.2, ...). -
Each request is counted against a new bucket, so the limiter always reports remaining attempts and never returns
429. -
The attacker continues guessing without throttling until the dashboard password is recovered, yielding an authenticated admin session.
Proof of Concept
Baseline — fixed header value (lockout enforced)
Repeated POST /api/auth/login with a constant X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9 and body {"password":"wrong"}:
POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close
{"password":"wrong"}
Observed responses (sequential):
#1 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
#2 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 3 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":3}
#3 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 2 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":2}
#4 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 1 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":1}
#5 → 429 Retry-After: 30
{"error":"Too many failed attempts. Try again in 30s. ...","retryAfter":30}
Exploit — rotated header value (lockout bypassed)
Same request and body, but a different X-9r-Real-Ip per request, sent while 9.9.9.9 was already locked:
POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close
{"password":"wrong"}
Observed responses:
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.2 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.3 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
<img width="1211" height="814" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-19 183338" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/07e37cf3-1860-4a06-8b27-97a5f6b9be64" /> <img width="1208" height="816" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-19 183408" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/27021c5c-cb29-4649-887e-8de46f4c6e1c" />
Every rotated value resets to "4 attempt(s) left" and never returns 429, demonstrating unbounded guessing.
Impact
The login brute-force/credential-stuffing protection can be fully neutralized by a remote, unauthenticated attacker. This permits unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint, materially increasing the likelihood of account compromise. A recovered password yields an authenticated administrative session over the 9router dashboard and its protected APIs. The bypass is especially impactful given the default network bind (0.0.0.0) and the existence of a default dashboard password, both of which lower the effort required to succeed.
Remediation
- Do not derive the rate-limit key from a client-controllable header. Base
getClientIp()on the transport-level peer address (req.socket.remoteAddress) for the limiter bucket. - Only honor forwarded client-IP headers when they originate from explicitly trusted, configured proxy infrastructure.
- If
custom-server.jsis required for the security model, fail closed when its trusted marker is absent, and strip/reject any inbound client-suppliedX-9r-*headers at the edge before they reach the limiter. - Consider a global (non-bucketed) attempt ceiling and exponential backoff as defense-in-depth so that header manipulation cannot reset all counters.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| 9router | < 0.5.8 |
0.5.8 |
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.
9router npm → 0.5.8
- npm
npm install 9router@0.5.8- yarn
yarn add 9router@0.5.8- pnpm
pnpm add 9router@0.5.8
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-307: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Common protection mechanisms include: Disconnecting the user after a small number of failed attempts Implementing a timeout Locking out a targeted account Requiring a computational task on the user's part.
- 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 [REF-1482]. Consider using libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator. [REF-45]
CWE-807: Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only. Ensure that the system definitively and unambiguously keeps track of its own state and user state and has rules defined for legitimate state transitions. Do not allow any application user to affect state directly in any way other than through legitimate actions leading to state transitions. If information must be stored on the client, do not do so without encryption and integrity checking, or otherwise having a mechanism on the server side to catch tampering. Use a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm, such as Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [REF-529]. Apply this against the state or sensitive data that has to be exposed, which can guarantee the integrity of the data - i.e., that the data has not been modified. Ensure that a strong hash function is used (CWE-328).
- 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. With a stateless protocol such as HTTP, use a framework that maintains the state for you. Examples include ASP.NET View State [REF-756] and the OWASP ESAPI Session Management feature [REF-45]. Be careful of language features that provide state support, since these might be provided as a convenience to the programmer and may not be considering security.
- 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.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: 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. Identify all inputs that are used for security decisions and determine if you can modify the design so that you do not have to rely on submitted inputs at all. For example, you may be able to keep critical information about the user's session on the server side instead of recording it within external data.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-5mj8-gf6m-fhw8 9Router has an Authentication Bypass in Public LLM API via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-8g4w-4ffg-8vgx 9Router: Authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via OIDC Provider Test Endpoint | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-vmjq-hvgq-2wv4 9router: Mass assignment in PATCH /api/settings allows authenticated authorization downgrade | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-6mwv-4mrm-5p3m 9router: Kiro region injection allows authenticated SSRF with Authorization header forwarding | Medium | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-x5c9-v98j-722r 9router /v1 APIs has unauthenticated access via reverse proxy locality collapse | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-86m2-fcxq-5q7c 9router: Unauthenticated `/v1` proxy access via `Host`-header spoofing → open AI relay + SSRF | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r 9router: Unauthenticated LLM proxy access via /codex rewrite authorization bypass | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-cmhj-wh2f-9cgx 9router: Image prefetch DNS rebinding allows SSRF to internal services | High | Also affects 9router |
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