Skip to content

GHSA-rcvp-6fgw-c7fh CVE-2026-44563 PYSEC-2026-2754

Open WebUI's Ollama Model Access Control Bypass via /api/generate, /api/embed, /api/embeddings, and /api/show

Medium PyPI
Severity
5.4 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.24%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 14.87% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.9.0
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Ollama Model Access Control Bypass via /api/generate, /api/embed, /api/embeddings, and /api/show

Affected Component

Ollama proxy endpoints missing model access control:

  • backend/open_webui/routers/ollama.py (lines 955-995, generate_completion)
  • backend/open_webui/routers/ollama.py (lines 835-881, embed)
  • backend/open_webui/routers/ollama.py (lines 891-937, embeddings)
  • backend/open_webui/routers/ollama.py (lines 791-820, show_model_info)

Affected Versions

Current main branch (commit 6fdd19bf1) and likely all versions with Ollama model access control support.

Description

Four Ollama proxy endpoints accept any model name from the user and forward the request to the Ollama backend without checking whether the user is authorized to access that model. These endpoints only require get_verified_user (any authenticated non-pending user) and validate that the model exists in the full unfiltered model list, but never check AccessGrants.has_access().

This is in direct contrast with the /ollama/api/chat endpoint (line 1101-1122) which correctly validates model access grants and returns 403 for unauthorized users:

# /api/chat (line 1101-1122) — CORRECTLY checks access
if not bypass_filter and user.role == 'user':
    user_group_ids = {group.id for group in Groups.get_groups_by_member_id(user.id)}
    if not (
        user.id == model_info.user_id
        or AccessGrants.has_access(
            user_id=user.id, resource_type='model',
            resource_id=model_info.id, permission='read',
            user_group_ids=user_group_ids,
        )
    ):
        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='Model not found')

# /api/generate (line 955-995) — NO access check at all
# /api/embed (line 835-881) — NO access check at all
# /api/embeddings (line 891-937) — NO access check at all
# /api/show (line 791-820) — NO access check at all

CVSS 3.1 Breakdown

Metric Value Rationale
Attack Vector Network (N) Exploited remotely via API calls
Attack Complexity Low (L) Single API call with a known model name
Privileges Required Low (L) Requires any authenticated user account
User Interaction None (N) No victim interaction required
Scope Unchanged (U) Impact within the Ollama model access boundary
Confidentiality Low (L) /api/show exposes restricted model details including system prompts and parameters
Integrity None (N) No data modification
Availability Low (L) Unauthorized consumption of GPU/compute resources on restricted models

Attack Scenario

  1. Admin configures model access control, restricting llama3:70b to the "ML Engineers" group. Regular user Alice is only authorized for llama3:8b.
  2. Alice knows the restricted model name (model names are predictable — llama3:70b, mistral:latest, etc.).
  3. Alice calls the unprotected endpoints directly:
    # Run completions on restricted model
    curl -X POST /ollama/api/generate \
      -H "Authorization: Bearer <alice_token>" \
      -d '{"model": "llama3:70b", "prompt": "..."}'
    
    # View restricted model details and system prompt
    curl -X POST /ollama/api/show \
      -H "Authorization: Bearer <alice_token>" \
      -d '{"model": "llama3:70b"}'
    
    # Generate embeddings with restricted model
    curl -X POST /ollama/api/embed \
      -H "Authorization: Bearer <alice_token>" \
      -d '{"model": "llama3:70b", "input": "..."}'
    
  4. All requests succeed and are proxied to Ollama without any access control check.

Impact

  • Model access control is silently ineffective for four out of five Ollama proxy endpoints
  • Unauthorized users can consume GPU/compute resources on restricted models (cost and capacity impact in multi-user deployments)
  • /api/show exposes restricted model configurations including system prompts, parameters, templates, and license information
  • Admins have a false sense of security — access restrictions appear to work via the main chat interface but are trivially bypassed via direct API calls

Preconditions

  • Ollama must be configured as a backend
  • Admin must have configured model access control (not using BYPASS_MODEL_ACCESS_CONTROL=true)
  • Attacker must know the restricted model name (model names follow predictable conventions)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
< 0.9.0
0.9.0

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 → 0.9.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.9.0"
poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.9.0"
uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.9.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

Weakness

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
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