Skip to content

GHSA-f6x8-65q6-j9m9 CVE-2026-42230

n8n has Open Redirect in MCP OAuth Consent Flow

Medium npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.18%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.69% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-601 URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
Fix
1.123.32
Upgrade n8n to this version or later

Description

Impact

The /mcp-oauth/register endpoint accepted OAuth client registrations without authentication, allowing arbitrary redirect_uri values to be registered. When a user denies the MCP OAuth consent dialog, the handleDeny handler redirects the user to the registered redirect_uri without validation, enabling an open redirect to an attacker-controlled URL. An attacker can craft a phishing link and send it to a victim; if the victim clicks "Deny" on the consent page, they are silently redirected to an external site.

Patches

The issue has been fixed in n8n versions 1.123.32, 2.17.4, and 2.18.1. Users should upgrade to one of these versions or later to remediate the vulnerability.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, administrators should consider the following temporary mitigations:

  • Restrict network access to the n8n instance to prevent untrusted users from reaching the MCP OAuth endpoints.
  • Limit access to the n8n instance to fully trusted users only.

These workarounds do not fully remediate the risk and should only be used as short-term mitigation measures.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
n8n
< 1.123.32
1.123.32
n8n
>= 2.18.0, < 2.18.1
2.18.1
n8n
>= 2.0.0, < 2.17.4
2.17.4

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.

n8n npm → 1.123.32

npm
npm install n8n@1.123.32
yarn
yarn add n8n@1.123.32
pnpm
pnpm add n8n@1.123.32

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 4.7

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
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-v98v-ff95-f3cp
n8n Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Expression Injection
High Known exploited Also affects n8n
GHSA-qgpw-8g46-w95v
n8n: Git Node branch.<name>.remote Config Key Bypasses Sandbox Path Restriction, Enabling Local Git Repository Read
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-65xw-2v52-jhxc
n8n: Cross-User Active Workflow ID and Lifecycle Event Disclosure via Missing userId Filter
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-pq6c-vh67-xpm3
n8n: Log Streaming Event Destinations Decrypt Generic-Auth Credentials Without Ownership Check
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-cqr2-h44g-v75v
n8n: Cross-Tenant Project-Member PII Disclosure via Missing Per-Project Scope Check on Role Assignment Endpoints
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-pf83-w3f9-8m37
n8n: Disabled OIDC SSO Endpoints Remain Active and Issue Valid Sessions
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-6xcw-7xm6-48c6
n8n: Expression Sandbox Escape via Shared Builtin Tampering and Code-Printer Injection Leads to Code Execution
High Also affects n8n
GHSA-34ff-336r-5q23
n8n: Domain-Restriction Bypass via Unguarded Model-Search Endpoint in OpenAI Chat Model Node
Medium Also affects n8n
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