GHSA-pcvc-8vrv-8q6w CVE-2026-87017 PYSEC-2026-4125
Open WebUI: Inaccessible knowledge bases are exposed through the built-in knowledge tool on most vector backends
- Severity
- 4.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.37%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.14% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
0.11.1- Upgrade open-webui to this version or later
Description
Summary
The built-in knowledge search tool returns knowledge bases the calling user has no access to. The tool works out which knowledge bases the caller may read and hands that set to the vector store as a search filter, and that filter is the only access control on the path. Most of the shipped vector backends accept the filter argument on their search method and never apply it, so the search returns matches from every knowledge base in the shared collection. The sibling query method on those same backends does apply a filter, which is why the omission is invisible from the calling code.
Preconditions
- The deployment must use one of the affected vector backends, selected with
VECTOR_DB, which defaults tochroma. Chroma applies the filter, so a default deployment is not affected. - Eleven of the fifteen shipped backends ignore the filter: both Qdrant clients, Elasticsearch, OpenSearch, both Milvus clients, openGauss, Oracle 23ai, Pinecone, S3 Vectors and Weaviate. Chroma, pgvector, MariaDB and Valkey apply it and were never affected.
- The caller needs a model that can call tools, with the knowledge built-in tools left enabled, which is the default, and with no knowledge attached to the model itself. No elevated role or permission is required.
- At least one knowledge base must exist that the caller cannot otherwise read.
Impact
A user receives the identifier, name and description of knowledge bases that were never shared with them, and chooses how many results to ask for, so the set can be enumerated by varying the query. The affected collection stores one entry per knowledge base whose text is its name and description, so where those values are themselves sensitive, for example when they name a customer, a project or an investigation, that disclosure is the loss.
The exposure is confined to that metadata. Document text lives in separate per-knowledge-base collections reached by a different call that is scoped by collection rather than by this filter, so stored documents are not returned by this path, and no write access is gained. Because the default backend is unaffected, the population at risk is operators who deliberately moved to an external vector store, which in practice means larger deployments.
Fix
Fixed in 0.11.1 by 1d6d4e6e6. Every affected backend now applies the caller-supplied filter in its search method, combined with the collection or tenant scoping that method already performed. Where a backend's filter builder could express only single-value equality it was extended to express set membership, since that is the form the knowledge tool sends, and a filter using any other operator is now rejected rather than dropped. Upgrading is sufficient and no configuration change is required. Deployments on Chroma, pgvector, MariaDB or Valkey were never affected and need no action.
Root cause
- The search method of each affected vector client, which declares a filter parameter and never references it.
- The built-in knowledge search tool, which relies on that filter as its only access check.
- Present from 0.7.0, the release that introduced the tool, through 0.11.0.
Each client exposes a search method and a query method that appear interchangeable from the calling side and differ in whether the caller's filter survives. Search built its request with collection or tenant scoping only, so it was correctly scoped to the collection and entirely unscoped within it. The knowledge tool resolves the caller's readable knowledge bases correctly and passes them down, then reads the results without rechecking them, on the reasonable assumption that a filter handed to a vector store is applied. Because the access decision was delegated wholly to a parameter that most implementations discarded, the caller had no way to observe that it received more than it asked for.
That the same omission repeated across most backends points at the shared interface rather than at any one client: the base class defines the parameter without obliging an implementation to honour it, and each backend was written against the interface independently.
Proof of concept
Run against the shipped client classes taken from the 0.11.0 and 0.11.3 release tags, with a real Qdrant engine behind them. Two entries were inserted into the shared knowledge base collection, one readable and one not, mirroring the payload the application writes. The entries were inserted directly rather than created through the application.
On 0.11.0, search given a filter naming only the readable knowledge base returned both, and the same call with no filter returned an identical result set, confirming the filter had no effect:
search(filter={'knowledge_base_id': {'$in': ['kb-allowed']}}) -> ['kb-allowed', 'kb-secret']
search(filter=None) -> ['kb-allowed', 'kb-secret']
On 0.11.3 the same filter returned only the readable entry, while the unfiltered control still returned both, confirming the collection held both and the filter is what excluded the second:
search(filter={'knowledge_base_id': {'$in': ['kb-allowed']}}) -> ['kb-allowed']
search(filter=None) -> ['kb-allowed', 'kb-secret']
The Chroma client, run the same way on both tags, returned only the readable entry in every case, which is the default backend being unaffected. The S3 Vectors client was additionally run against a stub that answers every query with the whole index regardless of the filter it is sent: on 0.11.0 it returned both entries, and on 0.11.3 it returned only the readable one.
The remaining backends were checked by driving each patched filter builder with the exact filter the knowledge tool sends and confirming the request it produces restricts to the readable knowledge base.
Credits
Reported by @Classic298.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| open-webui | >= 0.7.0, < 0.11.1 |
0.11.1 |
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 → 0.11.1
- pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.11.1"- poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.11.1"- uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.11.1"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
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-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