Skip to content

GHSA-jxc9-xmc4-gr23 CVE-2026-70488 PYSEC-2026-3648

Open WebUI: Deletion of directories and file embeddings in other knowledge bases via sync cleanup

Medium PyPI
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.37%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.43% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
0.11.0
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Summary

A user with write access to one knowledge base could delete directories, and drop file embeddings, belonging to knowledge bases they do not control. The sync cleanup endpoint verified write access on the knowledge base named in the URL and then acted on the directory and file ids supplied in the request body without checking that those objects belonged to that knowledge base.

Preconditions

Default configuration, no flags involved. The attacker needs write access to at least one knowledge base, which comes from owning one, from a write access grant, or from the admin role; workspace.knowledge is off by default, so an ordinary user cannot simply create one. They also need the victim's directory or file id, which are UUIDs and are not enumerable, so in practice the attacker is someone who can already see the target knowledge base, typically a read-only collaborator on a shared one. Deployments where no knowledge base is shared beyond its owner are not reachable.

Impact

The attacker deletes a target directory and, because the deletion runs without moving files to the parent, the knowledge_file associations for every file in that subtree are removed as well, so those documents silently drop out of the victim's knowledge base and out of its retrieval results. Separately, the per-file vector cleanup dropped the standalone file-<id> collection for any file id, breaking chat-with-file for that document. The stored files and their database rows survive, since that path was gated on file ownership, and an owner can restore the state by re-adding and reprocessing. Nothing about the target knowledge base's contents is disclosed to the attacker.

Fix

Fixed in https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/26722. Both request-body loops are now scoped to the knowledge base in the URL: a directory is resolved and skipped unless its knowledge_id matches, and the per-file vector cleanup runs only for files that are members of that knowledge base. Upgrading fully resolves the issue.

Root cause

Affected component: backend/open_webui/routers/knowledge.py, handler sync_knowledge_cleanup, endpoint POST /api/v1/knowledge/{id}/sync/cleanup. Affected setup: all builds from 0.9.6 onward, no optional dependency involved.

The handler treated the write-access check on the URL knowledge base as authorization for everything it went on to do, but the objects it acted on came from the request body and were addressed by primary key alone. Directory deletion at the model layer deletes by directory id and has no notion of a parent knowledge base, so the only thing that could have bound the two together was a membership check in the handler, and there was none. The explicit directory-delete endpoint in the same router already carried that check, which is what makes this a gap in one handler rather than a missing model-layer control.

Credits

Reported by @whyiug.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
>= 0.9.6, < 0.11.0
0.11.0

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 → 0.11.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.11.0"
poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.11.0"
uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.11.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

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-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