GHSA-hr43-rjmr-7wmm CVE-2026-44550 PYSEC-2026-2735
Open WebUI's Mass Assignment via Pydantic extra='allow' Allows Creating Folders in Other Users' Accounts
- Severity
- 5.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.29%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 21.24% 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
Mass Assignment via Pydantic extra='allow' Allows Creating Folders in Other Users' Accounts
Affected Component
Folder creation endpoint and form model:
backend/open_webui/models/folders.py(lines 72-77,FolderFormwithextra='allow')backend/open_webui/models/folders.py(lines 95-106,insert_new_folderdict construction)backend/open_webui/routers/folders.py(line 119,create_folderendpoint)
Affected Versions
Current main branch (commit 6fdd19bf1) and likely all versions since FolderForm adopted extra='allow'.
Description
FolderForm uses model_config = ConfigDict(extra='allow'), which permits arbitrary fields to pass through Pydantic validation and be included in model_dump(exclude_unset=True). In insert_new_folder, the server-assigned user_id is placed at the start of the dict and then overwritten by the spread of form data:
# models/folders.py:95-106
folder = FolderModel(
**{
'id': id, # server
'user_id': user_id, # server — overwritten below
**(form_data.model_dump(exclude_unset=True) or {}), # user-controlled (extra='allow')
'parent_id': parent_id,
'created_at': int(time.time()),
'updated_at': int(time.time()),
}
)
Because FolderModel declares user_id: str as a real field (not just a form extra), any attacker-supplied user_id in the POST body is accepted by the model and persisted on the Folder row.
Attack Scenario
- Attacker discovers a victim's user ID. User UUIDs commonly leak via the user search endpoint (
GET /api/v1/users/search, intentionally accessible to verified users for sharing UI), shared chat metadata, or channel member lists. - Attacker sends:
POST /api/v1/folders/ { "name": "Important: Click here", "user_id": "<victim_user_id>", "meta": {"icon": "warning"}, "data": {...} } - Pydantic accepts the extra
user_idfield (allowed byextra='allow'). insert_new_folderspreads the form data over the server-set'user_id': user_id, overwriting it with the attacker's value.- The
Folderrow is persisted withuser_id = <victim_user_id>. - The victim sees the attacker-planted folder in their UI on next load because
GET /api/v1/folders/filters by the viewer's ownuser_id.
The attacker can repeat this to plant multiple folders, use crafted name values for phishing ("Click here to recover account" / "Security alert"), and abuse the meta and data fields to add visual elements that further mimic legitimate content.
Impact
- Unauthorized write into victim's folder tree
- Phishing surface: attacker-controlled
name,meta, anddatarender in the victim's UI in a trusted context - DoS / spam: attacker can flood a victim with arbitrary folders; victim must manually delete each one
- Attacker cannot read the folder back — all read paths filter by the caller's own
user_id— so confidentiality is preserved, but integrity and trust are compromised
Preconditions
- Attacker must have an authenticated account with
features.folderspermission (default for all users) - Attacker must know or guess the victim's user UUID (obtainable through various non-sensitive endpoints)
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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 5.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- 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.
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