GHSA-3g9q-v48f-hh9w CVE-2026-87011 PYSEC-2026-4117
Open WebUI: Unauthenticated requests can stall the server via uncached OIDC fetches in back-channel logout
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.64%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 50.87% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-405 Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification)
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
0.11.1- Upgrade open-webui to this version or later
Description
Summary
The OIDC back-channel logout endpoint is unauthenticated by design, because the identity provider calls it without a browser session. Before checking whether the submitted logout token was genuine, the handler fetched the provider's discovery document and its signing keys over the network, and repeated both fetches on every request because nothing was cached. The signing-key fetch also ran as a blocking call inside the async event loop. A small number of requests carrying a worthless token was therefore enough to make the whole instance stop answering.
Preconditions
ENABLE_OAUTH_BACKCHANNEL_LOGOUT=true. The default isFalse, so a stock deployment is not affected. This setting is recommended in the Open WebUI hardening documentation, which is why the issue is treated as in scope.- At least one OIDC provider configured (
OAUTH_CLIENT_ID,OAUTH_CLIENT_SECRET,OPENID_PROVIDER_URL). - No account, credential, session or secret identifier is required. The attacker needs network access to the instance and the configured issuer string, which is published in the provider's own discovery document.
Impact
Against 0.11.0, with the identity provider answering in 150 ms, 60 concurrent requests carrying a token whose signature was four characters long stalled the async event loop for 8.3 seconds, measured against an idle baseline of 10.8 ms. For the length of that stall the process answers nothing: no chat requests, no API calls, no health check. Open WebUI runs a single worker by default, so the effect is instance-wide rather than per-connection, and no rate limit sits in front of the endpoint.
The same traffic is also amplified outward: 20 sequential requests produced 20 discovery fetches and 40 key-set fetches at the identity provider, so an attacker can drive load onto the provider through the instance.
No data is read, modified or exposed, and the forged token is still rejected. The cost is paid before the rejection.
Fix
Fixed in 0.11.1. The handler now resolves both the discovery document and the signing keys through the already-configured OAuth client, so each is fetched once per provider and reused afterwards, and both fetches are asynchronous rather than blocking the event loop. A token carrying no kid header is rejected before any key lookup happens. Upgrading is sufficient, and no configuration change is required.
Root cause
Affected component: the OIDC back-channel logout handler in backend/open_webui/utils/oauth.py, reached through POST /oauth/backchannel-logout. Affected setups: releases 0.9.0 through 0.11.0 with back-channel logout enabled and an OIDC provider configured.
The handler treated its network work as cheap preparation rather than as work worth protecting. For every request it opened a new HTTP session per configured provider to re-read the discovery document, then constructed a fresh JWKS client, whose own cache consequently started empty each time, and asked that client for the signing key through a synchronous call issued directly on the event loop. All of this ran before the token signature was verified, so an attacker unable to produce a valid token still cost the server two network round trips and a blocked loop per request. Both fetches used the library default timeout of five minutes.
Proof of concept
Reproduced by running the unmodified handler from the 0.11.0 and 0.11.1 backends against a loopback identity provider that counted every inbound request and could answer with a configured delay. The submitted token carried a valid issuer and audience, a kid naming a key the provider does not hold, and AAAA as its signature.
20 sequential requests, provider answering immediately:
| Version | Discovery fetches | Key-set fetches | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.11.0 | 20 | 40 | 400 |
| 0.11.1 | 1 | 1 | 400 |
60 concurrent requests, provider answering in 150 ms:
| Version | Wall time | Discovery fetches | Key-set fetches | Worst event-loop stall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.11.0 | 18.6 s | 60 | 120 | 8255 ms |
| 0.11.1 | under 0.01 s | 0 | 0 | none measurable |
Idle event-loop stall was 10.8 ms in both cases. On 0.11.1 the first request an instance receives warms both caches, and every request after that reaches the signature check without any outbound network call.
Credits
@galanko, for reporting the issue and identifying both the missing caching and the blocking call.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| open-webui | >= 0.9.0, < 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 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-405: Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification)
The product does not properly control situations in which an adversary can cause the product to consume or produce excessive resources without requiring the adversary to invest equivalent work or otherwise prove authorization, i.e., the adversary's influence is "asymmetric."
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: An application must make resources available to a client commensurate with the client's access level.
- Architecture and Design: An application must, at all times, keep track of allocated resources and meter their usage appropriately.
- System Configuration: Consider disabling resource-intensive algorithms on the server side, such as Diffie-Hellman key exchange.
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
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