GHSA-pvcr-8mvp-w8qr CVE-2026-72849
Budibase: Chat-Link Handoff Identity Confusion (Same-Tenant Account-Link CSRF)
- Severity
- 8.7 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.16%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 5.41% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-285 Improper Authorization
- CWE-345 Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Summary
The Budibase AI chat-link handoff flow (GET/POST /api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff) binds an external chat identity (Slack/Discord/MS Teams/Telegram) to a Budibase user account. The confirmation endpoint is on a public route (no CSRF middleware, no auth-group gate) and the only credential it checks is a confirmationToken that is already rendered in plaintext into the HTML confirmation page the victim views. There is no binding between the confirmation token and the requester's Budibase session at preparation time, and no CSRF token on the POST.
Consequently, an attacker who creates a chat-link session for their own external chat identity (or any identity they can mint in their chat platform) can induce a victim Budibase user (same tenant) to submit the confirmation POST -> for example by sending them a link that auto-submits, or by XSS/CSRF on a co-tenanted page -> and the victim's globalUserId becomes bound to the attacker's external identity. The attacker then sends messages to the AI agent from their chat platform and is acting as the victim user inside Budibase automations/agent operations, inheriting the victim's permissions on agent operations, knowledge sources, and any downstream automation steps keyed off the linked identity.
Affected
| Component | Path | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| Public handoff routes (no auth-group middleware) | packages/server/src/api/routes/chat.ts |
23 (GET /api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff), 27 (POST .../handoff) |
| Confirmation controller | packages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts |
124-177 (confirmChatLinkSession); the binding at 153-173 |
| Confirmation token rendered into HTML | packages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts |
40-60 (renderLinkConfirmationPage); the hidden input at 55 |
| Session creation (attacker side) | packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts |
138-171 (createChatIdentityLinkSession), 173-188 (prepareChatIdentityLinkSessionConfirmation) |
| Upsert of identity link | packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts |
201-250 (upsertChatIdentityLink) |
Affected versions: master at commit 3c8d1b4023.
Reachable over HTTP by: the GET and POST are on publicRoutes (no auth-group middleware). The POST requires ctx.isAuthenticated at runtime (controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:142) -> so the victim must be logged into Budibase when the POST fires (achievable via standard CSRF if cookies are sent cross-origin, or via phishing that lures the victim to submit).
Root cause
Issue 1 -> The handoff routes are public and unauthenticated at the middleware layer.
// packages/server/src/api/routes/chat.ts:23, 27
publicRoutes.get("/api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff", ai.handoffChatLinkSession)
publicRoutes.post("/api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff", ai.confirmChatLinkSession)
publicRoutes has no group middleware (endpointGroups/standard.ts:24-25 calls endpointGroupList.group() with no middleware and then .lockMiddleware()). The routes do not have a per-route authorized(...). There is no CSRF middleware on these routes -> Budibase's CSRF synchroniser token is enforced only for state-changing verbs on authenticated routes that are not in NO_CSRF_ENDPOINTS; the public-routes path bypasses it.
Issue 2 -> The confirmation token is exposed to anyone who views the GET page.
// packages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:40-60
const renderLinkConfirmationPage = (session, action) => {
...
return `<!doctype html>...
<form method="post" action="${helpers.escapeHtml(action)}">
<input type="hidden" name="confirmationToken" value="${helpers.escapeHtml(session.confirmationToken)}">
<button type="submit">Confirm</button>
</form>
...`
}
The confirmationToken (a newid() UUIDv4 generated by prepareChatIdentityLinkSessionConfirmation) is rendered into a hidden form input. Anyone who loads the GET page sees the token in the page source.
Issue 3 -> The POST binds the currently-authenticated user to the external identity based solely on the confirmation token.
// packages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:124-177
export async function confirmChatLinkSession(ctx) {
...
if (!ctx.isAuthenticated) { throw new HTTPError("Authentication is required to link chat identity", 401) }
if (!session.confirmationToken || ctx.request.body?.confirmationToken !== session.confirmationToken) {
throw new HTTPError("Link confirmation is invalid or has expired", 400)
}
const currentGlobalUserId = getCurrentGlobalUserId(ctx) // <- victim's ID
const consumedSession = await sdk.ai.chatIdentityLinks.consumeChatIdentityLinkSession(token)
...
await sdk.ai.chatIdentityLinks.upsertChatIdentityLink({
provider: consumedSession.provider,
externalUserId: consumedSession.externalUserId, // <- attacker's chat identity
externalUserName: consumedSession.externalUserName,
...
globalUserId: currentGlobalUserId, // <- bound to victim
linkedBy: currentGlobalUserId,
})
...
}
There is no binding between the session and the requester's Budibase identity at preparation time. prepareChatIdentityLinkSessionConfirmation (sdk/workspace/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:173-188) stores the confirmationToken keyed by token with no user-id field. Whoever is authenticated when the POST fires (and supplies the correct confirmationToken) gets bound.
Issue 4 -> assertSessionMatchesInstance only checks workspace ID, not user.
// packages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:17-27
const assertSessionMatchesInstance = ({ workspaceId, instance }) => {
if (!workspaceId || workspaceId !== instance) {
throw new HTTPError("Link token is not valid for this workspace", 400)
}
}
The check confirms the session belongs to the same workspace as the URL instance param -> useful for preventing cross-workspace confusion but useless against same-tenant identity confusion.
Reproduction
Step-by-step attack
-
Attacker (tenant T) provisions a chat-link session for their own external identity. Via the agent channel provisioning flow (e.g.
POST /api/agent/:agentId/slack/provisionor via the Discord/MS Teams/Telegram provisioning endpoints), the attacker obtains a chat-linktokenbound to their own Slack user ID. The session is stored in Redis keyed bytoken, scoped to tenant T. -
Attacker triggers
prepareChatIdentityLinkSessionConfirmation. Either by GETting the handoff page themselves (if they have a Budibase session) or via an internal API. TheconfirmationTokenis generated and stored. -
Attacker crafts a phishing/auto-submit page that POSTs to
/api/chat-links/<instance>/<token>/handoffwith the leakedconfirmationTokenin the body. Example:<form id="f" method="post" action="https://victim.budibase.app/api/chat-links/app_xxx/linktoken/handoff"> <input name="confirmationToken" value="<leaked-token>"> </form> <script>document.getElementById('f').submit()</script> -
Victim (a Budibase user in tenant T, e.g. an admin) is lured to the attacker page while logged into Budibase. Their browser sends the POST cross-origin. If the Budibase auth cookie is sent on cross-site requests (
SameSite=Laxby default allows top-level POST navigations, which a form-submit is), the request is authenticated as the victim. -
The victim's
globalUserIdis now bound to the attacker's Slack identity. When the attacker DMs the AI agent from Slack, the agent's operations run as the victim user -> with the victim's permissions on agent operations, knowledge sources, file uploads, and any downstream automation steps keyed off the linked identity.
Mitigating factors:
SameSite=Laxcookies block cross-site POSTs from sub-resources (fetch / XHR) but allow top-level form-POST navigations. A phishing page that submits the form viadocument.form.submit()(a top-level navigation) succeeds. So the CSRF works with the default cookie policy.- The attack is same-tenant only (
session.tenantId !== context.getTenantId()is checked in the sdk). - The attacker must induce the victim to click a link (standard phishing). No silent drive-by.
Impact
| Capability | Available |
|---|---|
| Bind an attacker-controlled chat identity to a victim's Budibase account | ✅ |
| Send messages to the AI agent as the victim user (Slack/Discord/MS Teams/Telegram) | ✅ |
| Inherit the victim's permissions on agent operations | ✅ |
| Trigger automations / agent operations that the victim is authorised for | ✅ |
| Read knowledge sources the victim has access to | ✅ |
The severity depends on what the agent can do as the victim. For an admin victim, this is full tenant administration via chat. For a regular user, it is impersonation within the agent subsystem. The bound identity persists until manually unlinked, so the attacker retains ongoing access.
This is a same-tenant, user-interaction-required primitive. It is below the "unauthenticated RCE" threshold but above "hardening" -> it is a real authentication-confusion vulnerability on a sensitive identity-binding operation.
Fix
Recommended layered fixes:
-
Bind the confirmation token to the requester's Budibase session at preparation time. In
prepareChatIdentityLinkSessionConfirmation, store theglobalUserIdof the requester alongside theconfirmationToken. InconfirmChatLinkSession, verify thatgetCurrentGlobalUserId(ctx)matches the stored requester. This breaks the CSRF / cross-user confusion. -
Add a CSRF token to the confirmation POST. The standard Budibase CSRF synchroniser token (
x-csrf-tokenheader, validated against the session'scsrfToken) should be enforced onPOST /api/chat-links/.../handoff. Move the route out ofpublicRoutesto an authenticated route group so CSRF applies (the GET can remain public for the redirect-to-login flow; the POST should be authenticated + CSRF-protected). -
Add a per-session nonce that is bound to the requester's browser (e.g. a signed cookie set on the GET, validated on the POST) to prevent cross-origin submission even when
SameSite=Laxallows it. -
Require user re-authentication (re-entry of password / step-up auth) for sensitive identity-binding operations, similar to how password change requires re-auth.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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 4.0 8.7
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- High
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 7.7
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
- 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-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
How to prevent it
- 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 [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Packages
Other links
- github.com/Budibase/budibase/security/advisories/GHSA-pvcr-8mvp-w8qr
- github.com/Budibase/budibase/pull/19194
- github.com/Budibase/budibase/commit/362e6c654fb4da6e123c734333da2d6cbdcdb7ef
- github.com/Budibase/budibase/releases/tag/3.39.30
- vulncheck.com/advisories/budibase-before-identity-confusion-via-chat-link-handoff-…
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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-2xgg-r2wc-c5r2 Budibase: MySQL DESCRIBE Backtick Injection via multipleStatements in Database Connector | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-qw6m-8fw2-2v64 Budibase: NoSQL Injection via JSON Parameter Interpolation in MongoDB Query Execution | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
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