GHSA-r9g5-7q8j-958c CVE-2026-47718

FUXA provides guest and invalid-token access to protected read APIs in secure mode

Medium npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.46%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-287 Improper Authentication; CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix: 1.3.1; Upgrade fuxa-server to this version or later

Description

Summary

When secureEnabled=true, FUXA 1.3.0-2773 still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs.

Details

In secure mode, requests with no token or an explicitly invalid token were still able to access protected read endpoints.

Confirmed behavior:

guest GET /api/project returned 200 OK
invalid-token requests to /api/project also returned successful responses containing project data
guest and invalid-token requests also returned 200 OK on:
- /api/alarms
- /api/scheduler

Relevant code paths identified during analysis:

server/api/jwt-helper.js
- verifyToken() converts missing-token or invalid-token states into guest context instead of rejecting the request
server/api/projects/index.js
server/api/alarms/index.js
server/api/scheduler/index.js

These handlers accepted the guest context and returned sensitive data in secure mode.

PoC

Tested only against isolated local lab instances under the original tester's control. No production, customer, shared, or third-party systems were involved.

Reproduction:

Start FUXA 1.3.0-2773.
Set secureEnabled=true.
Send unauthenticated requests to:
- GET /api/project
- GET /api/alarms
- GET /api/scheduler?id=test
Observe 200 OK responses.
Send the same requests with an explicitly invalid x-access-token value.
Observe the same successful responses.

The exact HTTP requests and local PoC script used for confirmation can be provided upon request.

Impact

This is an authentication/authorization weakness in secure mode.

Impact includes:

project metadata disclosure
alarms disclosure
scheduler information disclosure
assistance in reconnaissance/follow-on attacks

Operators who believe secure mode protects these APIs are impacted.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
fuxa-server	`>= 1.3.0-2773, < 1.3.1`	`1.3.1`

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.

fuxa-server npm → `1.3.1`

npm

npm install fuxa-server@1.3.1

yarn

yarn add fuxa-server@1.3.1

pnpm

pnpm add fuxa-server@1.3.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: None
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): Low
Integrity (vulnerable system): Low
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None
Exploit maturity: Proof of concept

Weakness

CWE-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform 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) [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

Packages

github.com/frangoteam/FUXA

Timeline

May 28, 2026 Published
Oct 23, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-8ghr-w65f-j3qr FUXA's scheduler API missing admin check enables operator-to-admin escalation via scheduled device actions	Medium	Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-h9fj-c2qr-76g2 FUXA has SQL Injection in its TDengine DAQ connector via backslash bypass of escapeTdString	Medium	Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-w86f-rf9w-h3x6 FUXA: Unauthenticated SSRF via Socket.IO DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST and DEVICE_PROPERTY with response reading	High	Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-q3w6-q3hc-c5x6 FUXA's Unauthenticated Project Data Disclosure Exposes Server-Side Scripts and Device Configurations	High	Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-rg3m-cfq7-g6h6 FUXA Vulnerable to Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution via Script Test Mode Authorization Bypass	High	Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-fwcm-rqvw-j3p7 FUXA has an unauthenticated arbitrary tag value disclosure via /api/getTagValue	High	Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-68m5-5w2h-h837 FUXA Affected by a Path Traversal Sanitization Bypass	High	Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-c869-jx4c-q5fc FUXA Unauthenticated Remote Arbitrary Scheduler Write	Critical	Also affects fuxa-server

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