Skip to content

GHSA-qx5f-ghc2-7g5c CVE-2026-42303 PYSEC-2026-2471

Ethyca Fides has a Privacy Request Identity Verification Bypass Vulnerability via Duplicate Detection

Medium PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.31%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-288 Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-841 Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow
Fix
2.83.2
Upgrade ethyca-fides to this version or later

Description

Summary

Fides deployments that enable both subject identity verification and duplicate privacy request detection are affected by a vulnerability in which an administrator can approve a privacy request whose identity was never verified. For erasure policies, this can result in unauthorized deletion of a data subject's records across every integration configured in the affected deployment.

A related lower-severity denial-of-service issue, in which an unauthenticated attacker could prevent a legitimate data subject from completing their own privacy requests, is also patched in the fix for this vulnerability.

Am I affected?

This vulnerability only affects deployments that use Fides's privacy request (data subject request) features, also known collectively as "Lethe". Deployments that do not submit, process, or manage privacy requests through Fides are not affected.

Within deployments that do use privacy request features, your deployment is affected if both of the following settings are effectively set to true:

  • subject_identity_verification_required
  • privacy_request_duplicate_detection.enabled

Both settings default to false.

Each setting can be configured in multiple places. If the same setting is configured in more than one place, Fides resolves conflicts in the following precedence order, highest priority first:

  1. Admin UI / configuration API - stored in the application database and applied at runtime
  2. Environment variables - read at webserver startup
  3. fides.toml - read at webserver startup
  4. Default value - used if none of the above set the value

To determine whether your deployment is affected, check each setting in every location that applies to your configuration management.

subject_identity_verification_required

  • fides.toml: under the [execution] section as subject_identity_verification_required = true
  • Environment variable: FIDES__EXECUTION__SUBJECT_IDENTITY_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED=true
  • No Admin UI control - this setting is not exposed through the Admin UI and cannot be set via the configuration API

privacy_request_duplicate_detection.enabled

  • fides.toml: under the [privacy_request_duplicate_detection] section as enabled = true
  • Environment variable: FIDES__PRIVACY_REQUEST_DUPLICATE_DETECTION__ENABLED=true
  • Admin UI: Settings → Privacy requests → Duplicate detection, via the "Enable duplicate detection" toggle. The toggle reflects only values set through the Admin UI or configuration API. A value set via fides.toml or environment variable will not appear here.

<figure> <img width="1392" height="940" alt="GHSA - Duplicate Detection Enabled" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e384f273-ce68-403c-adb2-93536eca5f3a" /> <figcaption> <em> The "Enable duplicate detection" toggle when it's enabled, under Settings → Privacy requests in the Admin UI. </em> </figcaption> </figure>

Details

When duplicate detection classifies a privacy request as a duplicate before its identity has been verified, the administrative interface presents that request with Approve, Deny, and Delete options. An administrator performing routine duplicate request triage may approve such a request without realising the identity was never verified. The request is then processed as if verification had succeeded.

An attacker exploits this by submitting two privacy requests using a target's email address, never completing the OTP verification. The second request is classified as a duplicate and becomes approvable through the administrative interface.

The fix for this vulnerability also patches a lower-severity issue, present in versions 2.82.0 through 2.83.1, in which a legitimate data subject could not complete identity verification on a privacy request that had been classified as a duplicate, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to block that data subject from exercising their privacy rights through the affected deployment.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker who knows a target's email address and can reach the public Privacy Center can cause an erasure privacy request to be approved by an administrator and processed without identity verification. The result is unauthorized deletion of the data subject's records across every integration configured in the affected deployment. Effects may be permanent and may cascade into downstream systems.

Access privacy requests are a less meaningful vector: the resulting access package is delivered to the data subject's registered email address, not to the attacker, so the attacker does not gain the data. The request still represents unauthorized processing.

Patches

The vulnerabilities have been patched in Fides OSS version 2.83.2. Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against these threats.

Fides Enterprise (fidesplus) version 2.83.2 contains the same patch.

Workarounds

Disable duplicate detection by setting privacy_request_duplicate_detection.enabled to false. This can be changed under Settings → Privacy Requests → Duplicate detection in the Admin UI). This fully mitigates the vulnerability and is the recommended interim workaround for deployments that cannot immediately upgrade.

<figure> <p> <img width="1392" height="880" alt="GHSA - Disable Duplicate Detection" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fc0c87a1-7e40-4698-ba9e-e1721f591310" /> <figcaption> <em> The "Enable duplicate detection" toggle when it's disabled, under Settings → Privacy requests in the Admin UI. </em> </figcaption> <p> </figure>

Administrators of deployments that must retain duplicate detection should deny or delete, rather than approve, any privacy request whose identity has not been verified. This reduces the likelihood of exploitation but relies on administrator vigilance during each triage action.

<img width="1392" height="1044" alt="GHSA - Admin Approval of Unverified Privacy Request" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b2ad4940-40d3-468b-897e-8cca6ce4707e" /> <figcaption> <em> An administrator's view when approving an unverified privacy request in the Admin UI. </em> </figcaption> </figure>

Severity

This vulnerability has been assigned a severity of MEDIUM.

The rating reflects the fact that exploitation requires an administrator to approve the malicious request. An attacker alone cannot cause a privacy request to be processed. The administrative interface understates the verification state of a duplicate-classified request, which increases the likelihood of inadvertent approval during routine triage, but without administrator user interaction the vulnerability is not exploitable.

The related denial-of-service issue addressed in the same patch is also rated medium-severity in isolation and does not raise the overall severity of this advisory.

References

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ethyca-fides
>= 2.75.0, < 2.83.2
2.83.2

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.

ethyca-fides PyPI → 2.83.2

pip
pip install --upgrade "ethyca-fides>=2.83.2"
poetry
poetry add "ethyca-fides>=2.83.2"
uv
uv add "ethyca-fides>=2.83.2"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Active
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-288: Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel

The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Funnel all access through a single choke point to simplify how users can access a resource. For every access, perform a check to determine if the user has permissions to access the resource.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

CWE-841: Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow

The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-5qrq-9645-g5g2
ethyca-fides has a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via fides_description override
High Also affects ethyca-fides
GHSA-hjfh-p8f5-24wr
Fides Webserver API is Vulnerable to OAuth Client Privilege Escalation
High Also affects ethyca-fides
GHSA-fq34-xw6c-fphf
Fides Webserver API Rate Limiting Vulnerability in Proxied Environments
High Also affects ethyca-fides
GHSA-7q62-r88r-j5gw
Fides has a Lack of Brute-Force Protections on Authentication Endpoints
Medium Also affects ethyca-fides
GHSA-rpw8-82v9-3q87
Fides' Admin UI User Password Change Does Not Invalidate Current Session
Medium Also affects ethyca-fides
GHSA-v7vm-rhmg-8j2r
Password Policy Bypass Vulnerability in Fides Webserver User Accept Invite API
High Also affects ethyca-fides
GHSA-c34r-238x-f7qx
Remote Code Execution Vulnerability via SSTI in Fides Webserver Jinja Email Templating Engine
High Also affects ethyca-fides
GHSA-2h46-8gf5-fmxv
Timing-Based Username Enumeration Vulnerability in Fides Webserver Authentication
Medium Also affects ethyca-fides
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