Skip to content

GHSA-vrh8-c9cm-wh8v CVE-2026-56668 GO-2026-6474

ZITADEL: Unauthorized Token Privilege Escalation in OAuth2 Token Exchange

High Go
Severity
8.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.41%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.53% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
4.15.3
Upgrade github.com/zitadel/zitadel to this version or later

Description

Summary

A vulnerability in ZITADEL’s OAuth2 Token Exchange endpoint allows an authenticated user or client to exchange a low-privilege access token for a token with elevated permissions at a completely different application. This bypasses the intended authorization and separation policies configured within ZITADEL.

Impact

ZITADEL enables administrators to restrict token issuance based on client permissions, project roles, and specific scopes. Due to a missing verification step during the Token Exchange flow (urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange), ZITADEL fails to validate whether the incoming access token belongs to or is authorized for the client initiating the exchange. Additionally, ZITADEL does not enforce that the newly requested scopes must stay within the boundaries of the original token's scopes.

An attacker with valid access to a low-privilege application can exploit this behavior by sending a token exchange request to a highly-privileged target application. This allows them to obtain administrative project roles, access sensitive profile data, or gain unauthorized access to other applications across the system. If public clients (which do not require client secrets) are used, this risk increases significantly as it requires no client authentication.

Affected Versions

Systems running one of the following versions are affected:

  • 4.x: 4.0.0 through 4.15.2 (including RC versions)
  • 3.x: 3.0.0 through 3.4.12 (including RC versions)

Patches

The vulnerability has been addressed in the latest releases. The patch resolves the issue by enforcing strict audience ownership verification and ensuring that requested scopes during a token exchange are restricted to a subset of the original token’s scopes.

Workarounds

The recommended solution is to upgrade to a patched version immediately. If an immediate upgrade is not possible, implement one of the following mitigations:

  • Disable via Feature Flag: Ensure the Token Exchange feature flag is explicitly turned off in your instance settings or environment variables (ZITADEL_DEFAULTINSTANCE_FEATURES_TOKENEXCHANGE=false). If the feature flag is disabled, the endpoint is unreachable and your system is not vulnerable. This is only possible in versions prior to v4.11.0, where the feature was not yet GA.
  • Remove the Grant Type: Ensure that the Token Exchange grant type is completely disabled or removed from all configured applications—especially high-privilege or public clients.

Questions

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please email us at security@zitadel.com.

Credits

Thanks to thesecguy45 and Shubham Raj / Causal Security for reporting this vulnerability.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/zitadel/zitadel
< 4.15.3
4.15.3
github.com/zitadel/zitadel
all versions
No fix yet

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.

github.com/zitadel/zitadel Go → 4.15.3

go
go get github.com/zitadel/zitadel@v4.15.3 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.1

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

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

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-fgmf-7rf8-m6vf
ZITADEL: Actions V1 sandbox escape: host file read via require()
High Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
GHSA-9993-rfwp-rhwf
ZITADEL: MFA bypass via session reuse in Login V2
High Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
GHSA-v859-c572-qh5p
ZITADEL: Improper Role Revocation on Granted Projects during Multiple Role Deletions
Medium Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
GHSA-jq8w-8q2f-ffm9
ZITADEL Users Can Self-Verify Email/Phone via API
High Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
GHSA-992q-9gwp-7r79
ZITADEL: Auto-linking by email: IdP-side email verification is not checked
Medium Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
GHSA-v77h-2w3m-94hx
ZITADEL: Missing Token Expiration (`exp`) Validation in JWT IdP Provider
Medium Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
GHSA-g5h5-m4hm-xjrr
ZITADEL: Missing Token Audience Validation (`aud`) in JWT IdP Provider
Medium Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
GHSA-wxg7-w2v3-w38g
ZITADEL: Missing Token Lifecyle Validation (`exp` and `iat`) in JWT IdP Provider
Medium Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel
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