Skip to content

GHSA-x5c9-v98j-722r CVE-2026-56675

9router /v1 APIs has unauthenticated access via reverse proxy locality collapse

High npm
Severity
8.3 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.50%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.94% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-287 Improper Authentication
CWE-290 Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-441 Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')
Fix
0.5.2
Upgrade 9router to this version or later

Description

Summary

9router treats local loopback requests as trusted and allows access to /v1/* without an API key. In a documented/common reverse-proxy deployment where nginx forwards public traffic to the backend via 127.0.0.1, external non-Origin requests are misclassified as local. This allows unauthenticated access to /v1 APIs such as /v1/models, and may allow abuse of configured upstream provider credentials depending on the enabled providers.

Details

  • Affected version / commit: 9router v0.4.80 @ b282f05.
  • Deployment precondition: a same-host reverse proxy (e.g. nginx) forwarding public traffic to the backend on 127.0.0.1 / localhost. This mirrors the documented cloud deployment (proxy_pass http://localhost:20128 with X-Real-IP / X-Forwarded-For).
  • Observed behaviour:
    • The direct backend (direct-backend, port 18081) returns 401 for /v1/models without an API key.
    • A direct request that spoofs X-9r-Real-IP: 127.0.0.1 still returns 401: the custom server deletes the client-supplied header and overwrites it with the real socket address, so naive header spoofing does not work against the direct backend.
    • The proxied path (reverse-proxy, port 18080) returns 200 with the full model catalog for the same /v1/models request without any API key.
    • A proxied request that carries an Origin header returns 401. The bypass therefore primarily affects curl / SDK / server-side / non-browser clients, which do not send Origin.
  • Root cause: the backend's local/remote decision relies on perceived socket/loopback locality after reverse proxying. Because nginx connects to the backend from 127.0.0.1, the backend stamps a loopback client address for every internet client and treats the request as local, skipping the /v1 API-key requirement. The forwarded X-Real-IP / X-Forwarded-For headers that carry the true client IP are ignored for this decision.
  • This is not a simple client header-spoofing issue (the direct-spoof control above proves header spoofing is rejected); it is a property of how loopback proxy traffic is trusted.

Proof of Concept

This repository is a self-contained Docker Compose reproduction. No real provider is called and no real API key is required.

  1. Build and start the stack:
    docker compose up --build
    
  2. Direct baseline (no API key):
    curl -i http://127.0.0.1:18081/v1/models
    
  3. Direct spoof control:
    curl -i -H "X-9r-Real-IP: 127.0.0.1" http://127.0.0.1:18081/v1/models
    
  4. Reverse-proxy bypass (no API key):
    curl -i http://127.0.0.1:18080/v1/models
    
  5. Reverse-proxy Origin control:
    curl -i -H "Origin: http://evil.example" http://127.0.0.1:18080/v1/models
    

Expected evidence

Request Result
Direct 18081, no key 401 Unauthorized ({"error":"API key required for remote API access"})
Direct 18081, X-9r-Real-IP: 127.0.0.1 spoof 401 Unauthorized
Proxied 18080, no key 200 OK with the full model catalog
Proxied 18080, with Origin 401 Unauthorized

Impact

  • Unauthenticated access to the /v1 API surface in the affected reverse-proxy deployment.
  • Model enumeration via /v1/models.
  • Possible abuse of the operator's configured upstream provider credentials through /v1/chat/completions and other /v1 proxy endpoints (the attacker spends the operator's provider quota/keys without holding any key of their own).
  • Actual impact depends on which providers are configured and how the instance is exposed to the public internet.
  • The attacker requires no API key.

Suggested Fix

  • Do not use client/proxy/socket IP locality as an authentication bypass.
  • Require an API key by default for /v1/* on public listeners.
  • If local trust is genuinely needed, bind it to an unguessable server-generated secret or to a Unix domain socket that is only accessible locally — not to "the connection looks like loopback".
  • When running behind reverse proxies, use an explicit trusted-proxy configuration and a real client-IP derivation (e.g. a vetted X-Forwarded-For chain), and never treat all loopback proxy traffic as end-user-local.
  • Document a secure reverse-proxy configuration for operators.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
9router
< 0.5.2
0.5.2

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.

9router npm → 0.5.2

npm
npm install 9router@0.5.2
yarn
yarn add 9router@0.5.2
pnpm
pnpm add 9router@0.5.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • 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: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

CWE-441: Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')

The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Enforce the use of strong mutual authentication mechanism between the two parties.
  • Architecture and Design: Whenever a product is an intermediary or proxy for transactions between two other components, the proxy core should not drop the identity of the initiator of the transaction. The immutability of the identity of the initiator must be maintained and should be forwarded all the way to the target.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v
9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header
Medium Also affects 9router
GHSA-5mj8-gf6m-fhw8
9Router has an Authentication Bypass in Public LLM API via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-8g4w-4ffg-8vgx
9Router: Authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via OIDC Provider Test Endpoint
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-vmjq-hvgq-2wv4
9router: Mass assignment in PATCH /api/settings allows authenticated authorization downgrade
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-6mwv-4mrm-5p3m
9router: Kiro region injection allows authenticated SSRF with Authorization header forwarding
Medium Also affects 9router
GHSA-86m2-fcxq-5q7c
9router: Unauthenticated `/v1` proxy access via `Host`-header spoofing → open AI relay + SSRF
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r
9router: Unauthenticated LLM proxy access via /codex rewrite authorization bypass
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-cmhj-wh2f-9cgx
9router: Image prefetch DNS rebinding allows SSRF to internal services
High Also affects 9router
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