Skip to content

GHSA-6xhv-rxhv-pwm4 CVE-2026-70487 PYSEC-2026-3643

Open WebUI: Cross-user file content disclosure via request-scoped direct model knowledge metadata

Medium PyPI
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.42%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.97% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.11.0
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Summary

Open WebUI lets a client define a model inline on a chat request instead of selecting a saved workspace model. The knowledge attached to such an inline model was used as-is, without checking that the caller can read what it points at. Any authenticated user who knows another user's file id could therefore have the builtin knowledge tools return that file's indexed content back to them.

Preconditions

Authenticated user of any role, no admin rights needed. The request must carry a session id and use native function calling, which is the default (only function_calling: legacy opts out), and the model's builtin_tools capability must not be disabled (default enabled). The attacker must already know the target file's id; ids are UUIDs and are not enumerable through this path. No admin setting needs to be turned on: enabling Direct Connections is not required for the backend to accept an inline model. Knowledge bases attached this way were never affected, their own access grants were enforced on every path.

Impact

An authenticated user could read the indexed chunks of another user's or group's file, a cross-user confidentiality loss limited to files whose ids the attacker already holds. It is read-only: nothing is modified or deleted, knowledge-base permissions are unaffected, and saved workspace models were already validated at creation time.

Fix

Fixed in 0.11.0 by commit 305880f2e. An inline model's attached knowledge is filtered against the caller's real read access before it is used, dropping any file, knowledge base or note the caller cannot read. Upgrading fully resolves it, no configuration change is required.

Root cause

Affected component: the chat completion, chat completed and chat action endpoints, which accept an inline model definition, and the builtin knowledge tools that consume the model's attached knowledge. Affected setups: all builds from 0.8.8 through 0.10.2.

Saved workspace models have their attached file references validated against the author when the model is created, updated or imported, so a stored model can only carry files its creator can read. An inline model never passes through that path, yet everything downstream treated its attached knowledge with the same trust, including a helper that grants read access to a file purely because the running model claims it as attached knowledge. The missing control was an access check at the point where client-supplied model metadata enters the request.

Credits

Reported by @whyiug.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
>= 0.8.8, < 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 5.3

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

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

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-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