Skip to content

GHSA-8jhw-6pjj-8723 CVE-2024-56734

Better Auth has an Open Redirect Vulnerability in Verify Email Endpoint

Medium npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.39%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.82% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-601 URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
Fix
1.1.6
Upgrade better-auth to this version or later

Description

Summary

An open redirect vulnerability has been identified in the verify email endpoint of Better Auth, potentially allowing attackers to redirect users to malicious websites. This issue affects users relying on email verification links generated by the library.

Affected Versions

  • All versions prior to v1.1.6.

Impact

Attackers could craft malicious email verification links that exploit the redirect functionality to send users to untrusted domains. This can result in:

  • Phishing attacks – Users may unknowingly enter sensitive information on fake login pages.
  • Reputation damage – Trust issues for applications using Better Auth.

Vulnerability Details

The verify email callback endpoint accepts a callbackURL parameter. Unlike other verification methods, email verification only uses JWT to verify and redirect without proper validation of the target domain. The origin checker is bypassed in this scenario because it only checks for POST requests. An attacker can manipulate this parameter to redirect users to arbitrary URLs controlled by the attacker.

Example Exploit:

https://example.com/auth/verify-email?token=abcd1234&callbackURL=https://malicious-site.com

Patches

Upgrade to Better Auth v1.1.6 or later. This version enforces domain validation for callbackURL for /verify-email path and for all other GET endpoints.

Workarounds

You can also use hooks to pre-check URLs in your auth instance to prevent this without upgrading:

const auth = betterAuth({
    hooks: {
         before: (ctx) => {
            if (ctx.path === "/verify-email") {
               const callbackURL = ctx.query.callbackURL; // Check if this is a trusted callback URL or not
            }
         }
    }
})

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
better-auth
< 1.1.6
1.1.6

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.

better-auth npm → 1.1.6

npm
npm install better-auth@1.1.6
yarn
yarn add better-auth@1.1.6
pnpm
pnpm add better-auth@1.1.6

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High

CVSS 3.1 6.1

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.

How to prevent it
  • 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. Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
  • Architecture and Design: Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "/login.asp" and ID 2 could map to "http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that no externally-supplied requests are honored by requiring that all redirect requests include a unique nonce generated by the application [REF-483]. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Many open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-hjpm-7mrm-26w8
Beter Auth has an Open Redirect via Scheme-Less Callback Parameter
Medium Linked by the source
GHSA-r4xp-prcw-77qf
better-auth: OAuth Proxy lets an attacker sign in as another user
Critical Also affects better-auth
GHSA-965c-763c-88jm
better-auth: OAuth state can be used as a Magic Link to sign in as another user
Critical Also affects better-auth
GHSA-44jh-23m7-hpcf
@better-auth/drizzle-adapter: Concurrent requests can exceed rate limits on PostgreSQL
Medium Also affects better-auth
GHSA-q84f-53jg-9ppm
better-auth: Device login approval does not show the requesting client or permissions
High Also affects better-auth
GHSA-qq9h-g4jm-xgf3
Better Auth: Account takeover via pre-account hijacking on magic-link and email-OTP sign-in
High Also affects better-auth
GHSA-2vg6-77g8-24mp
Better Auth: Stale sessions persist after user deletion across admin, anonymous, and SCIM flows
Medium Also affects better-auth
GHSA-7w99-5wm4-3g79
@better-auth/oauth-provider's OAuth authorization-code grant allows concurrent redemption when two token requests race the find-then-delete primitive
High Also affects better-auth
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