Skip to content

GHSA-9vvh-qmjx-p4q8 CVE-2026-44555 PYSEC-2026-2719

Open WebUI's Base Model Routing Bypasses Access Control via Model Chaining

High PyPI
Severity
7.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.30%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.19% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.9.0
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Base Model Routing Bypasses Access Control via Model Chaining

Affected Component

Model chaining via base_model_id:

  • backend/open_webui/routers/models.py (lines 170-214, create_new_model)
  • backend/open_webui/routers/models.py (lines 254-308, import_models)
  • backend/open_webui/main.py (lines 1696-1711, base model resolution in chat completion)
  • backend/open_webui/routers/openai.py (lines 1032-1037, base model payload rewrite)
  • backend/open_webui/routers/ollama.py (lines 1086-1090, base model payload rewrite)
  • backend/open_webui/utils/models.py (line 380, check_model_access — checks user-facing model only)

Affected Versions

Current main branch (commit 6fdd19bf1) and likely all versions with the model chaining (base_model_id) feature.

Description

Open WebUI supports model composition via base_model_id: a user-defined model (e.g., "Cheap Assistant") can reference an existing base model (e.g., "gpt-4-turbo-restricted") that provides the actual inference capability. When a user queries the composed model, the access control pipeline verifies the user has access to the composed model but never re-verifies access to the chained base model.

Additionally, the model creation and import endpoints accept arbitrary base_model_id values without checking that the caller has access to that base model. Combined, this allows any user with the default model creation permission to create a model that chains to a restricted base model — and then invoke it, causing the server to dispatch the request to the restricted base model using the admin-configured API key.

# utils/models.py:380 — access check runs against the user-facing model only
def check_model_access(user, model):
    if user.role == 'user':
        ...check access grants on `model`...

# main.py:1696-1711 — base model resolved without access check
base_model = request.app.state.MODELS.get(model.info.base_model_id)
if base_model:
    # payload["model"] is rewritten to base_model.id
    # but no check_model_access(user, base_model) is performed

# openai.py:1032-1037 / ollama.py:1086-1090 — the rewritten payload is dispatched
payload['model'] = base_model_id

Attack Scenario

  1. Admin provisions a premium/restricted model gpt-4-turbo-restricted and configures access grants so only the "ML Engineers" group can use it.
  2. Attacker (a regular user not in that group) calls:
    POST /api/v1/models/create
    {
      "id": "cheap-assistant",
      "name": "Cheap Assistant",
      "base_model_id": "gpt-4-turbo-restricted",
      "params": {},
      "meta": {}
    }
    
    The creation endpoint does not validate the attacker's access to gpt-4-turbo-restricted.
  3. Attacker now owns cheap-assistant. check_model_access(attacker, cheap-assistant) passes trivially because they are the owner.
  4. Attacker sends:
    POST /api/chat/completions
    {"model": "cheap-assistant", "messages": [...]}
    
  5. At main.py:1696, the pipeline resolves cheap-assistant.base_model_id to gpt-4-turbo-restricted, rewrites payload["model"] to the base model ID, and dispatches the upstream request with the admin-configured API key for the backend.
  6. The attacker receives responses from the restricted model, bypassing the access grant policy.

The same bypass is available via the import endpoint, which additionally allows overwriting existing models (see related finding on model import ownership).

Impact

  • Regular users can query restricted models by chaining through a self-owned wrapper model
  • Access control on gpt-4-turbo-restricted (or equivalent paid/tiered/internal models) becomes silently ineffective
  • Direct cost impact on pay-per-token backends (OpenAI, Anthropic, Azure) — the admin's API key is used for requests the admin intended to forbid
  • Creates a false sense of security — the admin sees access restrictions work through the standard model selector but not through user-created chains

Preconditions

  • Attacker must have model creation permission (default workspace.models permission, granted to all users by default)
  • A restricted base model must exist on the instance (the target of the chain)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
< 0.9.0
0.9.0

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 → 0.9.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.9.0"
poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.9.0"
uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.9.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.6

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

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

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