GHSA-7r7x-gjvr-448g CVE-2026-59217 PYSEC-2026-3593
Open WebUI: Upload `metadata.knowledge_id` bypasses the knowledge-base write-access check (read-only users can add files to KB)
- Severity
- 4.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.37%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.13% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
0.10.0- Upgrade open-webui to this version or later
Description
Open WebUI upload metadata can add files to knowledge bases without write permission
Summary
Open WebUI's file upload background processing trusts the client-supplied metadata.knowledge_id value and inserts a knowledge_file association before validating that the uploading user has write access to the target knowledge base.
A verified user with only read access to a knowledge base can upload an arbitrary file and set metadata={"knowledge_id":"<target knowledge id>"}. The normal /api/v1/knowledge/{id}/file/add endpoint correctly requires knowledge-base write access, but the upload auto-link path bypasses that authorization check.
The immediate result is unauthorized modification of the target knowledge base's file membership. The attached attacker-controlled file becomes visible through /api/v1/knowledge/{id}/files, and readers/owners of that knowledge base can retrieve the file through the normal file endpoints because file access is derived from KnowledgeFile membership.
Affected Version
- Repository:
open-webui/open-webui - Tested source commit:
02dc3e689ceac915a870b373318b99c029ddf603 - Package version observed in
package.json:0.9.6 - Package name:
open-webui
Impact
A read-only knowledge-base collaborator can perform a write operation against that knowledge base by attaching arbitrary uploaded files.
Security impact:
- Unauthorized knowledge-base membership modification.
- Integrity impact on shared knowledge-base file listings.
- Attacker-controlled files become readable to other users who can read the target knowledge base.
- If an owner/admin later reprocesses or globally reindexes the knowledge base, the unauthorized file can be indexed into the knowledge collection, turning the membership bypass into RAG/content poisoning.
This is not an unauthenticated issue. It requires a verified Open WebUI account and a valid target knowledge-base ID. The clearest exploit path is a user who legitimately has read access to a knowledge base but not write access.
Source Evidence
The normal single-file knowledge add endpoint checks write permission before processing or inserting the relationship:
backend/open_webui/routers/knowledge.pyadd_file_to_knowledge_by_id- Lines 714-728 reject callers who are not owner, admin, or granted
writeaccess. - Lines 750-766 then process and insert the file only after that authorization gate.
The upload auto-link path does not perform the same check:
backend/open_webui/routers/files.pyprocess_uploaded_file- Lines 178-186 read
knowledge_idfrom upload metadata and immediately callKnowledges.add_file_to_knowledge_by_id(...). - Lines 187-192 call
process_file(... collection_name=knowledge_id ...)after the insert.
The model method inserts the relationship without validating the caller's write access to the knowledge base:
backend/open_webui/models/knowledge.pyadd_file_to_knowledge_by_id- Lines 646-677 create and commit a
KnowledgeFilerow for the suppliedknowledge_id,file_id, anduser_id.
The later vector write check exists, but it runs too late:
backend/open_webui/routers/retrieval.pyprocess_file- Lines 1587-1592 call
_validate_collection_access(..., access_type='write')when a collection is supplied.
Because the unauthorized KnowledgeFile row is already committed before that check runs, the failed vector processing does not undo the knowledge-base file association. The upload code catches the exception at backend/open_webui/routers/files.py lines 194-195 and logs a warning while leaving the row in place.
The unauthorized relationship affects file access decisions:
backend/open_webui/utils/access_control/files.pyhas_access_to_file- Lines 41-53 grant file access when a file is associated with a knowledge base the user can access.
So once the attacker's file is inserted into the target KnowledgeFile table, target knowledge-base readers/owners can see and fetch that file through normal knowledge/file routes.
Reproduction Steps
Use a local Open WebUI instance with two verified users:
- As user
owner, create a knowledge base. - Grant user
readerread access to the knowledge base, but do not grant write access. - As
reader, confirm the normal add-file endpoint is blocked:
POST /api/v1/knowledge/<knowledge_id>/file/add
Authorization: Bearer <reader token>
Content-Type: application/json
{"file_id":"<reader-owned-file-id>"}
Expected and observed behavior for the normal route: it rejects the request because reader lacks knowledge-base write access.
- As
reader, upload a new file with the same target knowledge ID embedded in upload metadata:
POST /api/v1/files/?process=true&process_in_background=false
Authorization: Bearer <reader token>
Content-Type: multipart/form-data
file=@attacker-note.txt
metadata={"knowledge_id":"<knowledge_id>"}
- Observe that the upload request succeeds and returns the uploaded file record.
- As
owner, request the knowledge-base files:
GET /api/v1/knowledge/<knowledge_id>/files
Authorization: Bearer <owner token>
- Observe that
attacker-note.txtappears in the target knowledge base even thoughreaderdid not have write access. - As
owner, request the file content:
GET /api/v1/files/<attacker_file_id>/content
Authorization: Bearer <owner token>
- Observe that the file is retrievable because
has_access_to_filederives access from the unauthorized knowledge-base membership.
Expected Behavior
The upload auto-link path should enforce the same authorization contract as /api/v1/knowledge/{id}/file/add:
- The target knowledge base must exist.
- The caller must be the knowledge owner, an admin, or have
writeaccess. - The supplied
directory_id, if present, must belong to the target knowledge base. - The
KnowledgeFileassociation should only be inserted after authorization and processing succeed.
Actual Behavior
metadata.knowledge_id causes Knowledges.add_file_to_knowledge_by_id(...) to insert a KnowledgeFile row before write authorization is checked. The later collection write validation can fail, but the unauthorized membership row remains committed.
Suggested Fix
Move knowledge-base authorization before the insert in the upload auto-link path. The upload path should share the same write-access and directory validation logic used by the dedicated knowledge endpoints.
One safe pattern:
- Load the target knowledge base.
- Require owner/admin/write access before calling
Knowledges.add_file_to_knowledge_by_id. - Validate that
directory_id, if supplied, belongs to the same knowledge base. - Run vector processing before inserting the membership row, or wrap processing plus insertion in a transaction/compensating cleanup so a denied or failed process cannot leave a stale unauthorized row.
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 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- 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.
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