GHSA-v7j5-vc4m-723w CVE-2026-50132
Budibase has an Account Impersonation Issue — Chat Identity Link Hijacking via Missing Consent & CSRF
- Severity
- 7.3 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.19%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.91% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
3.39.0- Upgrade @budibase/server to this version or later
Description
Title
Chat Identity Link Hijacking — Attacker Can Silently Map Their Slack/Discord Identity to Any Authenticated Budibase User's Account
Severity
High — CVSS 3.1: AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N = 7.3
Affected Product
- Product: Budibase
- Version: 3.37.2 (introduced in this version)
- Component:
packages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts - Endpoint:
GET /api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff
Vulnerability Type
- CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery
- CWE-284: Improper Access Control
Vulnerability Description
GET /api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff is a public endpoint (no auth required) that performs a permanent, state-changing operation: it binds an external chat identity (Slack/Discord/MS Teams) to an authenticated Budibase user account, with no consent UI and no CSRF protection.
The session token in the URL is created by the attacker (from their own /link slash command) and embeds the attacker's externalUserId. When an authenticated Budibase victim visits the URL, their account is silently and permanently linked to the attacker's Slack/Discord identity. The server responds with "Authentication succeeded." — no indication of what was linked.
Route Registration
// packages/server/src/api/routes/chat.ts:22
router.get(
"/api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff",
controller.handoffChatLinkSession // registered in publicRoutes — zero auth middleware
)
Vulnerable Controller (full function)
// packages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:61–110
export async function handoffChatLinkSession(
ctx: UserCtx<void, string, { instance: string; token: string }>
) {
const token = resolveToken(ctx.params.token)
const session = await sdk.ai.chatIdentityLinks.getChatIdentityLinkSession(token)
if (!session) {
throw new HTTPError("Link token is invalid or has expired", 400)
}
assertSessionMatchesInstance({ workspaceId: session.workspaceId, instance: ctx.params.instance })
if (!ctx.isAuthenticated) {
// Unauthenticated: set return URL cookie, redirect to login
// After login, same URL is visited again → attack completes silently
utils.setCookie(ctx,
`/api/chat-links/${ctx.params.instance}/${token}/handoff`,
"budibase:returnurl",
{ sign: false } // ← unsigned cookie, but not an open redirect
)
ctx.redirect("/builder/auth/login")
return
}
const currentGlobalUserId = getCurrentGlobalUserId(ctx)
const consumedSession = await sdk.ai.chatIdentityLinks.consumeChatIdentityLinkSession(token)
// ↓↓↓ THE VULNERABLE WRITE — no consent check, no CSRF token ↓↓↓
await sdk.ai.chatIdentityLinks.upsertChatIdentityLink({
provider: consumedSession.provider,
externalUserId: consumedSession.externalUserId, // ← ATTACKER's Slack ID
externalUserName: consumedSession.externalUserName,
teamId: consumedSession.teamId,
globalUserId: currentGlobalUserId, // ← VICTIM's Budibase user ID
linkedBy: currentGlobalUserId,
})
ctx.type = "text/html"
ctx.body = renderLinkSuccessPage() // ← "Authentication succeeded." — no disclosure to user
}
--
Step 1 — Attacker triggers /link in Slack
Attacker types /link to the Budibase Slack bot. Budibase server creates a Redis session:
Redis key: chatIdentityLinkSession:tok_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Redis value (exact structure from ChatIdentityLinkSession interface):
{
"token": "tok_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx",
"tenantId": "acme",
"workspaceId": "ws_abc123",
"provider": "slack",
"externalUserId": "UA12345678",
"externalUserName": "attacker",
"teamId": "T_ACME_SLACK",
"createdAt": "2026-05-02T10:00:00.000Z",
"expiresAt": "2026-05-02T10:10:00.000Z"
}
Slack DM sent privately to attacker:
Link your Slack account to continue chatting with this agent.
https://budibase.company.com/api/chat-links/ws_abc123/tok_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/handoff
Key observation: This URL embeds the attacker's own externalUserId inside the token. The attacker has full control over which identity gets linked.
Step 2 — Attacker forwards URL to victim
Attacker posts in the company Slack:
@admin please click this to connect your Budibase account for AI agent access:
https://budibase.company.com/api/chat-links/ws_abc123/tok_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/handoff
Step 3 — Victim clicks link (authenticated)
HTTP Request (victim's browser):
GET /api/chat-links/ws_abc123/tok_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/handoff HTTP/1.1
Host: budibase.company.com
Cookie: budibase:session=VICTIM_SESSION
HTTP Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
<title>Authentication succeeded</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>Authentication succeeded.</p>
<script>
if (window.opener && !window.opener.closed) {
try { window.opener.focus(); window.close() } catch (error) {}
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
The victim sees "Authentication succeeded." with no mention of Slack, no mention of attacker, no mention of what capabilities were granted.
CouchDB global-db document written immediately after (exact structure from upsertChatIdentityLink):
{
"_id": "chatidentitylink_acme_slack_T_ACME_SLACK_UA12345678",
"tenantId": "acme",
"provider": "slack",
"externalUserId": "UA12345678",
"globalUserId": "ro_global_us_VICTIM_ADMIN_ID",
"linkedAt": "2026-05-02T10:00:42.000Z",
"linkedBy": "ro_global_us_VICTIM_ADMIN_ID",
"externalUserName": "attacker",
"teamId": "T_ACME_SLACK",
"createdAt": "2026-05-02T10:00:42.000Z",
"updatedAt": "2026-05-02T10:00:42.000Z"
}
The mapping is now permanent. externalUserId = UA12345678 (attacker) → globalUserId = ro_global_us_VICTIM_ADMIN_ID (victim).
Step 4 — Attacker impersonates victim via AI agent
Attacker sends any message to the Budibase Slack bot from their own account (UA12345678).
The chat handler resolves the identity:
// packages/server/src/api/controllers/webhook/chatHandler.ts:421
const existingLink = await sdk.ai.chatIdentityLinks.getChatIdentityLink({
provider: AgentChannelProvider.SLACK,
externalUserId: "UA12345678", // ← attacker's Slack ID
teamId: "T_ACME_SLACK",
})
// existingLink.globalUserId = "ro_global_us_VICTIM_ADMIN_ID"
const linkedUser = await getGlobalUser("ro_global_us_VICTIM_ADMIN_ID")
// All agent tool calls now execute with victim admin's permissions
The attacker can now ask the agent:
"Show me all rows in the Customers table" "Trigger the 'Send Invoice' automation for customer ID 42" "What files are in the knowledge base?"
Each request runs with the victim admin's identity and permissions. The victim has no indication this is happening.
Step 3b — Variant: Victim Not Yet Authenticated
If the victim is not currently logged in when they click the URL:
HTTP Request:
GET /api/chat-links/ws_abc123/tok_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/handoff HTTP/1.1
Host: budibase.company.com
HTTP Response:
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: /builder/auth/login
Set-Cookie: budibase:returnurl=%2Fapi%2Fchat-links%2Fws_abc123%2Ftok_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%2Fhandoff; Path=/
After the victim logs in, the browser follows the return URL and the attack completes identically to Step 3.
Remediation
Minimum Fix — Add Consent Page
Convert the handoff to a two-step flow:
GET /api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff
→ Show consent page: "You are linking your Budibase account to
[externalUserName]'s Slack identity ([provider]).
This allows them to interact with AI agents as you. [Confirm] [Cancel]"
POST /api/chat-links/:instance/:token/handoff (with CSRF token)
→ Perform the upsertChatIdentityLink() write
Moving the write to POST removes it from publicRoutes, making Budibase's existing CSRF middleware apply automatically.
Credits, Vishal Kumar B https://github.com/VishaaLlKumaaRr
References
packages/server/src/api/routes/chat.ts:22— public route registrationpackages/server/src/api/controllers/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:61–110— full vulnerable controllerpackages/server/src/sdk/workspace/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:135–165— session creation (embeds attacker's externalUserId)packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/ai/chatIdentityLinks.ts:202–247— upsertChatIdentityLink (permanent write)packages/server/src/api/controllers/webhook/chatHandler.ts:421— identity resolution during agent message handlingpackages/server/src/ai/tools/budibase/automations.ts— automation trigger capabilitypackages/server/src/ai/tools/budibase/rows.ts— row read/write capabilitypackages/types/src/sdk/chatIdentityLinks.ts— session + link type definitions- CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery
- CWE-284: Improper Access Control
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| @budibase/server | < 3.39.0 |
3.39.0 |
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.
@budibase/server npm → 3.39.0
- npm
npm install @budibase/server@3.39.0- yarn
yarn add @budibase/server@3.39.0- pnpm
pnpm add @budibase/server@3.39.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-284: Improper Access Control
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
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]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-6x9p-4r67-5gjx Budibase authenticated arbitrary S3 signed upload URL issuance via `/api/attachments/:datasourceId/url` | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-5fpj-28rv-84r7 Budibase: SSRF in Automation Steps - Webhook, Zapier, N8N, Slack, Discord Bypass IP Blacklist | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-hfhx-w8p8-4hc7 Budibase: SSRF via bare fetch() in uploadUrl during AI table generation | Medium | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-v42f-v8xc-j435 Budibase: SSRF via DNS rebinding in the REST datasource integration | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-pmpg-2mxq-6xwr Budibase: NoSQL injection in MongoDB integration: collection dump, $where JS exec, cross-collection pivot, arbitrary update/delete | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-cr7p-cr3q-h5cm Budibase: Account Enumeration via Login Lockout Response Differential | Medium | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-pvcr-8mvp-w8qr Budibase: Chat-Link Handoff Identity Confusion (Same-Tenant Account-Link CSRF) | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
| GHSA-2xgg-r2wc-c5r2 Budibase: MySQL DESCRIBE Backtick Injection via multipleStatements in Database Connector | High | Also affects @budibase/server |
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