GHSA-m5qg-rvjq-727p CVE-2026-46549
NocoDB: OAuth Token Scope Not Enforced at ACL Layer Allows Scope Escalation
- Severity
- 2.0 / 10
- Low · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.24%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 15.32% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Summary
The OAuth token strategy attached oauth_scope and oauth_granted_resources to the request user, but the ACL middleware never consulted either. An OAuth token issued with a restricted scope (e.g. MCP-only) therefore inherited the full permissions of the underlying user across all routes; the granted_resources.base_id restriction was bypassed on org-level endpoints that don't populate req.context.base_id.
Details
In packages/nocodb/src/strategies/oauth-token.strategy.ts, the strategy set is_oauth_token, oauth_client_id, oauth_granted_resources, and oauth_scope on the user object, then mapped through to the user's existing roles / base_roles. The ACL middleware in extract-ids.middleware.ts honoured is_api_token via blockApiTokenAccess but had no equivalent gate for is_oauth_token or scope-string enforcement.
The base/workspace restriction logic short-circuited when req.context.base_id was unset (org-level routes), so an OAuth token scoped to one base could still call org-level endpoints as the underlying user.
The fix adds a path-prefix allowlist (['/mcp', '/api/v3/', '/auth/user/me']) enforced inside the strategy and a blockOAuthTokenAccess ACL flag for endpoints that should never accept OAuth tokens.
Impact
- Scope escalation: tokens issued with a narrow scope received the underlying user's full role.
- Resource boundary bypass: per-base restrictions did not apply to org-level routes.
- Violates least-privilege expectation for third-party OAuth integrations.
Credit
This issue was reported by @ik0z.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| nocodb | <= 0.301.3 |
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 2.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-hmcr-rmjq-47qr NocoDB: Server-Side Request Forgery via Spreadsheet Import Endpoint | Medium | Also affects nocodb |
| GHSA-h6vv-pcq8-7xm4 NocoDB: Server-Side Request Forgery via Base Migration URL | Medium | Also affects nocodb |
| GHSA-6mhr-74x2-98v9 NocoDB: Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Secure Attachment | Medium | Also affects nocodb |
| GHSA-r989-7g3j-wjhw NocoDB: Refresh Tokens Persist Through Password Recovery | Medium | Also affects nocodb |
| GHSA-gprh-27j3-g5h4 NocoDB: Server-Side Request Forgery via Spreadsheet Fetch URL | Medium | Also affects nocodb |
| GHSA-g72g-r7m4-9x4g NocoDB: OAuth Tokens Persist Through Security Events | Medium | Also affects nocodb |
| GHSA-xxpj-q764-9r6q NocoDB: Missing Ownership Check in MCP Attachment Read | Low | Also affects nocodb |
| GHSA-hj85-ph9q-78jg NocoDB: Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Form View Redirect URL | High | Also affects nocodb |
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