Skip to content

GHSA-vrfh-rj4q-rmhr CVE-2026-44564 PYSEC-2026-2762

Read-Only Open WebUI Users Can Modify Collaborative Documents via Socket.IO

Medium PyPI
Severity
5.4 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.22%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 12.58% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
0.9.0
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Read-Only Users Can Modify Collaborative Documents via Socket.IO

Affected Component

Socket.IO collaborative document editing handler:

  • backend/open_webui/socket/main.py (lines 667-721, ydoc:document:update handler)

Affected Versions

Current main branch and likely all versions with collaborative note editing.

Description

The ydoc:document:update Socket.IO event handler checks whether the sender is a member of the document's Socket.IO room (line 678) but does not verify that the sender has write permission. Users with read-only access join the document room via ydoc:document:join, which only requires read permission (line 520). Once in the room, the user can emit ydoc:document:update events that modify the in-memory Yjs document state and are broadcast to all other collaborators in real time.

The document_save_handler (line 600) correctly checks write permission before persisting to the database, so the attacker cannot directly save changes. However, the tampered content is visible to all collaborators, and if any user with write access saves the document, the injected content is persisted.

# ydoc:document:update handler (line 667) — only checks room membership, not write permission
async def on_document_update(sid, data):
    document_id = normalize_document_id(data.get('document_id', ''))
    # ...
    room = f'doc_{document_id}'
    if room not in sio.rooms(sid):  # Room membership check only
        return
    # Applies update to Yjs state and broadcasts to all users
    YDOC_MANAGER.apply_update(document_id, update)
    await sio.emit('ydoc:document:update', {...}, room=room, skip_sid=sid)

Compare with ydoc:document:join (line 520) which checks permission:

# Only checks READ permission — so read-only users join the room
if not has_access(user_id, type, id, 'read', db=db):
    return

CVSS 3.1 Breakdown

Metric Value Rationale
Attack Vector Network (N) Exploited remotely via Socket.IO events
Attack Complexity Low (L) No special conditions; attacker emits a standard Socket.IO event
Privileges Required Low (L) Requires a valid user account with read access to the shared note
User Interaction None (N) Modifications appear in real time without victim action; however, persistence requires a write-access user to save
Scope Unchanged (U) Impact is within the collaborative document context
Confidentiality None (N) No data disclosure beyond what read access already provides
Integrity Low (L) In-memory document state is modified and broadcast; persistence is indirect (requires another user to save)
Availability Low (L) Collaborative editing session can be disrupted with invalid content

Attack Scenario

  1. User A creates a note and shares it with User B with read permission.
  2. User B opens the note, which triggers ydoc:document:join — the server checks read permission and adds User B to the document room.
  3. User B emits ydoc:document:update with a crafted Yjs update payload via the Socket.IO connection (bypassing any frontend read-only enforcement).
  4. The server applies the update to the Yjs document state and broadcasts it to all collaborators.
  5. User A sees the injected content appear in their editor in real time.
  6. If User A saves the document (intentionally or via autosave), the tampered content is persisted to the database — User A's save passes the write permission check since User A is the owner.

Impact

  • Read-only users can inject, modify, or delete content in collaborative documents
  • Modifications are broadcast in real time to all collaborators, causing confusion or disruption
  • If a write-access user saves (including autosave), the tampered content is permanently persisted
  • Undermines the read/write permission model for collaborative editing

Preconditions

  • Attacker must have a valid user account with read access to a shared note
  • The note must be open for collaborative editing (at least one other user viewing it, or the attacker can wait for a write-access user to open and save)

Consolidation

This advisory covers read-only users modifying collaborative notes over Socket.IO. Two handlers were affected, both fixed in v0.9.0:

  • ydoc:document:update — checked only room membership, not write permission, so a read-only collaborator could inject in-memory document updates broadcast to other collaborators (persistence indirect). @Classic298.
  • document_save_handler — checked permission='read' while persisting via Notes.update_note_by_id, so a read-only collaborator could persist note changes directly. Reported by @hacnho

One CVE for the consolidated advisory.

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: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-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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