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
- 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
- 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
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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
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-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 |
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