Skip to content

GHSA-44m2-crh7-f4q2 CVE-2026-45717

Budibase: `PUT /api/datasources/:datasourceId` is protected only by `TABLE/READ` permission instead of builder access, allowing any authenticated app user to overwrite datasource connection parameters including host, port, and URL

High npm
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.25%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.54% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
3.38.1
Upgrade @budibase/server to this version or later

Description

Summary

Budibase exposes a REST API for datasource management. The route PUT /api/datasources/:datasourceId is registered in the authorizedRoutes group with TABLE/READ permission. This is the same authorization level as the read endpoint (GET /api/datasources/:datasourceId). Every authenticated Budibase app user with the BASIC built-in role or higher carries TABLE/WRITE (and therefore TABLE/READ) permissions, and the datasource update controller performs no additional builder check.

As a result, any authenticated non-builder app user can submit a PUT request to rewrite a datasource's config object — including the connection host, port, database credentials, or the base url of a REST datasource. Because no network-level SSRF protection is applied to SQL driver connections, redirecting a PostgreSQL/MySQL/MongoDB datasource to an internal IP address succeeds and the attacker can probe or interact with internal services on arbitrary ports.

Code evidence

Route registration — wrong authorization group

packages/server/src/api/routes/datasource.ts, line 35-37
authorizedRoutes
  .get("/api/datasources/:datasourceId", datasourceController.find)
  .put("/api/datasources/:datasourceId", datasourceController.update)   // <-- should be builderRoutes

All destructive (create/delete/verify) operations are gated behind builderRoutes:

builderRoutes
  .get("/api/datasources", datasourceController.fetch)
  .post("/api/datasources/verify", datasourceController.verify)
  .post("/api/datasources", datasourceValidator(), datasourceController.save)
  .delete("/api/datasources/:datasourceId/:revId", datasourceController.destroy)

The update route shares the same authorization group as the read route, not the builder group.

Authorization middleware allows BASIC-role users

packages/server/src/middleware/authorized.ts, lines 46-50
packages/backend-core/src/security/permissions.ts, lines 82-90
packages/backend-core/src/security/roles.ts, lines 162-169

authorizedRoutes is defined with authorized(PermissionType.TABLE, PermissionLevel.READ).

When doesHaveBasePermission(TABLE, READ, rolesHierarchy) is evaluated for a BASIC-role user:

  • BASIC role → BuiltinPermissionID.WRITE
  • WRITE permission includes PermissionImpl(PermissionType.TABLE, PermissionLevel.WRITE)
  • getAllowedLevels(WRITE) returns [WRITE, READ]
  • Therefore TABLE/READ is satisfied → user is authorized

BASIC is the lowest non-public authenticated built-in role. Any end-user account added to a Budibase app will be assigned at minimum the BASIC role.

Controller performs no additional builder check

packages/server/src/api/controllers/datasource.ts, lines 207-255
export async function update(ctx) {
  const db = context.getWorkspaceDB()
  const datasourceId = ctx.params.datasourceId
  const baseDatasource = await sdk.datasources.get(datasourceId)  // no builder guard
  await invalidateVariables(baseDatasource, ctx.request.body)

  const dataSourceBody: Datasource = isBudibaseSource
    ? { name: ..., type: ..., source: SourceName.BUDIBASE }
    : ctx.request.body                                              // attacker-controlled config

  let datasource: Datasource = {
    ...baseDatasource,
    ...sdk.datasources.mergeConfigs(dataSourceBody, baseDatasource),  // merges attacker config
  }

  const response = await db.put(sdk.tables.populateExternalTableSchemas(datasource))  // persisted
  ...
}

mergeConfigs does not protect non-password connection fields

packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/datasources/datasources.ts, lines 278-316

mergeConfigs only replaces PASSWORD_REPLACEMENT sentinel values back to the stored secret. Fields like host, port, database, url, ssl are taken from the update payload without restriction:

// update back to actual passwords for everything else
for (let [key, value] of Object.entries(update.config)) {
  if (value !== PASSWORD_REPLACEMENT) {
    continue          // non-password fields pass through unchanged
  }
  ...
}

Attack scenarios

Scenario 1: SSRF via SQL driver connection redirection

  1. Attacker is a BASIC-role user of a Budibase app that has a PostgreSQL (or MySQL/MongoDB) datasource.
  2. Attacker sends:
    PUT /api/datasources/<datasource_id> HTTP/1.1
    Host: target
    Authorization: Bearer <app-user-token>
    Content-Type: application/json
    
    {
      "config": {
        "host": "169.254.169.254",
        "port": 5432,
        "database": "postgres",
        "user": "postgres",
        "password": "PASSWORD_REPLACEMENT"
      }
    }
    
  3. Datasource config is persisted with host: 169.254.169.254.
  4. Any subsequent query execution against this datasource (POST /api/queries/execute) causes Budibase's PostgreSQL driver to open a TCP connection to 169.254.169.254:5432 on the internal network.
  5. Unlike REST connector SSRF (which has an IP deny list), SQL driver connections are made at the OS network level without HTTP-layer filtering, bypassing the existing SSRF mitigation introduced for REST connectors.

Scenario 2: SSRF via REST datasource URL change

  1. Same setup with a REST datasource.
  2. Attacker sends:
    PUT /api/datasources/<datasource_id> HTTP/1.1
    ...
    {
      "config": {
        "url": "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/"
      }
    }
    
  3. If the IMPORT_IP_DENY_LIST equivalent for Budibase's REST connector is not configured, the fetch proceeds and the response is visible in query results.
  4. Even with IP restrictions on the REST connector, the attacker can point the URL to any public-facing internal service (e.g., a staging server, internal API).

Scenario 3: Datasource disruption / DoS

An attacker with BASIC permissions can overwrite the datasource config with garbage values, breaking all application queries that depend on that datasource for all users of the app.

Minimal PoC shape

PUT /api/datasources/<target_datasource_id> HTTP/1.1
Host: <budibase-host>
Authorization: Bearer <basic-user-access-token>
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "name": "Modified",
  "source": "POSTGRES",
  "type": "datasource",
  "config": {
    "host": "169.254.169.254",
    "port": 5432,
    "database": "postgres",
    "user": "postgres",
    "password": "PASSWORD_REPLACEMENT",
    "ssl": false
  }
}

Expected secure behavior:

  • Return 403 Forbidden — only builder/admin users should be allowed to update datasource configurations.

Observed source behavior:

  • Config is persisted to CouchDB and all future queries against the datasource use the attacker-supplied connection parameters.

Impact

Dimension Assessment
Privileges required Authenticated BASIC-role app user (lowest non-public role)
User interaction None
Confidentiality High — SSRF to cloud metadata or internal services
Integrity High — overwrites datasource used by all app users
Availability High — can break all queries by injecting invalid config

Initial severity estimate: High (CVSS ~8.1)

Why this is distinct from known CVEs

CVE / GHSA Root cause Different because
CVE-2026-31818 (SSRF in REST connector) IMPORT_IP_DENY_LIST not set by default That fixed HTTP-level filter; SQL driver connections bypass HTTP-layer protection entirely
GHSA-2g39-332f-68p9 (RBAC privilege escalation) Creator role could create Admin roles Different mechanism — role creation, not route auth bypass
GHSA-gw94-hprh-4wj8 (Universal auth bypass) ?/webhooks/trigger param bypassed auth Completely different attack primitive
GHSA-726g-59wr-cj4c (PostgreSQL dump command injection) Unsanitized connection params in backup path Different vector — this is write access to live connection config

The root cause here is a route-level authorization misconfiguration: PUT /api/datasources/:id is registered in the wrong endpoint group (authorizedRoutes vs builderRoutes).

Fix direction

Move the PUT /api/datasources/:datasourceId route from authorizedRoutes to builderRoutes:

- authorizedRoutes
-   .get("/api/datasources/:datasourceId", datasourceController.find)
-   .put("/api/datasources/:datasourceId", datasourceController.update)

+ authorizedRoutes
+   .get("/api/datasources/:datasourceId", datasourceController.find)

+ builderRoutes
+   .put("/api/datasources/:datasourceId", datasourceController.update)

Submission note

Current state: source-confirmed candidate. Runtime reproduction (HTTP request against live Budibase instance) has not been executed in this session. Budibase has an active GHSA process — security reports via GitHub Security Advisories should receive triage within days based on historical pattern.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@budibase/server
< 3.38.1
3.38.1

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.

@budibase/server npm → 3.38.1

npm
npm install @budibase/server@3.38.1
yarn
yarn add @budibase/server@3.38.1
pnpm
pnpm add @budibase/server@3.38.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-6x9p-4r67-5gjx
Budibase authenticated arbitrary S3 signed upload URL issuance via `/api/attachments/:datasourceId/url`
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-5fpj-28rv-84r7
Budibase: SSRF in Automation Steps - Webhook, Zapier, N8N, Slack, Discord Bypass IP Blacklist
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-hfhx-w8p8-4hc7
Budibase: SSRF via bare fetch() in uploadUrl during AI table generation
Medium Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-v42f-v8xc-j435
Budibase: SSRF via DNS rebinding in the REST datasource integration
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-pmpg-2mxq-6xwr
Budibase: NoSQL injection in MongoDB integration: collection dump, $where JS exec, cross-collection pivot, arbitrary update/delete
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-cr7p-cr3q-h5cm
Budibase: Account Enumeration via Login Lockout Response Differential
Medium Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-pvcr-8mvp-w8qr
Budibase: Chat-Link Handoff Identity Confusion (Same-Tenant Account-Link CSRF)
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-2xgg-r2wc-c5r2
Budibase: MySQL DESCRIBE Backtick Injection via multipleStatements in Database Connector
High Also affects @budibase/server
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