Skip to content

GHSA-3cg5-48j3-v4gv CVE-2026-70494 PYSEC-2026-3638

Open WebUI: A folder write-collaborator can permanently delete the owner's chats by deleting a shared subfolder

High PyPI
Severity
8.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.55%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 45.93% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
0.11.0
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Summary

A user granted write access to a shared chat folder could permanently delete chats and messages belonging to the folder's owner. Deleting a folder cascades into the owner's chats and the entire subfolder subtree, and the deletion handler required only write access on subfolders instead of ownership. Root folders were restricted to the owner or an admin, subfolders were not.

Preconditions

The Folders Sharing permission (user.permissions.sharing.folders) must be enabled; it is off by default. The victim must have shared a folder with the attacker at write access. features.folders and the chat.delete permission are enabled by default and are both required. Deployments that leave folder sharing disabled are not affected, and neither are single-user instances.

Impact

Permanent, irreversible destruction of another user's chat history within and beneath a shared folder. With delete_contents=false the same request instead force-moved the owner's chats out of the folder, an unauthorized relocation rather than a deletion. The write grant on the shared root folder is inherited by every descendant, so the attacker could destroy subfolders that were never explicitly shared with them. Nothing outside the shared folder's subtree is reachable, and no data is disclosed that write access did not already expose.

Fix

Fixed in 0.11.0 by https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/27003. Folder deletion is now restricted to the folder owner or an admin for root folders and subfolders alike, replacing the previous root/subfolder split with a single check. Upgrading fully resolves the issue; no configuration change is required. Owners and admins are unaffected, and a write-collaborator can still create, rename and add to shared folders and delete subfolders they own.

Root cause

Affected component: backend/open_webui/routers/folders.py, the DELETE /api/v1/folders/{id} handler. Affected setup: any release from 0.10.0 onward that has folder sharing enabled.

The cascade that follows the authorization check is bound to the folder owner's id, not the caller's, so whoever passes the check deletes the owner's data. The check itself branched on whether the folder had a parent: root folders demanded ownership or admin, while subfolders accepted any write grant. Because write grants propagate down the folder tree, that branch handed every collaborator deletion rights over the owner's subtree, which is broader than what the sharing model grants write access.

Credits

@legobattman, who reported the issue and its remediation.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
>= 0.10.0, < 0.11.0
0.11.0

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.

open-webui PyPI → 0.11.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.11.0"
poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.11.0"
uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.11.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.1

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

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

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.

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

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