GHSA-74h3-cxq7-vc5q CVE-2026-59216 PYSEC-2026-3592
Open WebUI: Cross-user code-interpreter and tool execution via unvalidated Socket.IO event-caller session_id
- Severity
- 7.7 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.45%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.45% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
0.10.0- Upgrade open-webui to this version or later
Description
Summary
An authenticated low-privilege user can execute arbitrary code-interpreter Python and tools inside another user's authenticated session. The Socket.IO event-caller (get_event_call) delivers execute:python / execute:tool events to a client-supplied session_id after only checking that the session is connected, never that it belongs to the requester. Combined with ydoc:document:join, which exposes the live socket ids of everyone in a shared note's collaboration room to any read-access participant, an attacker can target a victim's session and run attacker-chosen code/tools in the victim's browser context. When the victim is an administrator, that hijacked context reaches the admin-only Functions API, whose source is executed server-side, yielding remote code execution as the server process (root in the default container).
Affected component
backend/open_webui/socket/main.py—get_event_call()/__event_caller__backend/open_webui/main.py— chat-completion metadata (session_idtaken from the request body)
Root cause
The event-caller routes to a caller-controlled session id with no ownership check:
# backend/open_webui/socket/main.py — get_event_call()
async def __event_caller__(event_data):
session_id = request_info['session_id']
if session_id not in SESSION_POOL: # only checks the session is connected
return {'error': 'Client session disconnected.'}
return await sio.call('events', {...}, to=session_id, ...) # delivered to that sid
session_id originates from the request body and is never validated against the authenticated user:
# backend/open_webui/main.py
metadata = {
'user_id': user.id, # server-derived (trustworthy)
'session_id': form_data.pop('session_id', None), # client-controlled
...
}
SESSION_POOL[session_id] is the user record of whoever owns that socket. Because the caller checks only membership (in SESSION_POOL), a request carrying another user's session_id causes execute:python / execute:tool to be delivered to that other user's browser.
Reachability
execute:python/execute:toolare emitted from the code-interpreter and tool-call paths (utils/middleware.py,tools/builtin.py), all routed throughget_event_call.- The victim's live
session_idis disclosed to any read-access participant of a shared note viaydoc:document:join. POST /api/v1/chat/completionsrequires onlyget_verified_user(the default user role). The attacker uses their own account and a model / Direct Connection they control to choose the payload.
Impact
- Any victim: arbitrary code-interpreter Python and tool execution in the victim's authenticated session — the attacker acts with the victim's identity and origin (full session/account compromise).
- Admin victim: the hijacked admin context reaches
POST /api/v1/functions/create, whose source isexec()'d server-side → remote code execution as the server process (root in the default container).
The Functions API is intended administrator code-execution; the vulnerability here is the cross-user delivery that lets an attacker drive another user's session — including an admin's — into it. The primitive is a full session compromise even against non-admin victims.
Proof of Concept
The reporter's exploit.py reproduced on ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:0.9.6 and a build of the v0.9.6 tag, confirming blind server-side RCE out-of-band (callback returns uid=0(root)), using only a low-privilege user account that shared a note with an admin victim. Preconditions: code interpreter enabled; attacker shares a note with the victim; victim opens it while online; admin victim required for server RCE.
Fix
get_event_call must verify the target session belongs to the requesting user before delivering, not merely that it is connected:
session = SESSION_POOL.get(session_id)
if session is None or session.get('id') != request_info.get('user_id'):
return {'error': 'Client session disconnected.'}
user_id in the request metadata is server-derived from the authenticated user, so it is trustworthy. Restricting ydoc:document:join so it does not disclose other participants' socket ids is recommended as defence-in-depth.
Affected / Patched
- Affected:
< 0.10.0(last affected release 0.9.6) - Patched: v0.10.0.
get_event_callnow verifies the target session belongs to the requesting user before delivering (session is None or session.get('id') != request_info.get('user_id')), using the server-deriveduser_idfrom the request metadata. The recommendedydoc:document:joinsid-disclosure restriction is defence-in-depth and independent of this fix; the ownership check closes the cross-user delivery regardless of whether the victim's sid is known.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| open-webui | < 0.10.0 |
0.10.0 |
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 → 0.10.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.10.0"- poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.10.0"- uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.10.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.7
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
- Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
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-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
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