GHSA-xp3c-3jw3-4vcr BIT-openbao-2026-63131 CVE-2026-63131 GO-2026-6579

OpenBao Skips Stricter Deny Policy for LIST operations

Medium Go

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.48%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.69% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 0.0.0-20260713133043-f58d848c139e; Upgrade github.com/openbao/openbao to this version or later

Description

Impact

When a policy operator has written capabilities = ["deny"] on a path with a trailing wildcard but allowed a broader list operation (e.g., a deny on secrets/metadata/restricted/* but allowed list on secrets/metadata/*), OpenBao would incorrectly allow the operation. This did not impact other operation types.

Patches

This has been patched in OpenBao v2.6.0.

Affected versions

Go

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
github.com/openbao/openbao	`< 0.0.0-20260713133043-f58d848c139e`	`0.0.0-20260713133043-f58d848c139e`
github.com/openbao/openbao	`>= 0.1.0, <= 1.1.5`	No fix yet
github.com/openbao/openbao	`< 0.0.0-20260713133043-f58d848c139e` `>= 0.1.0`	`0.0.0-20260713133043-f58d848c139e`

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/openbao/openbao Go → `0.0.0-20260713133043-f58d848c139e`

go

go get github.com/openbao/openbao@v0.0.0-20260713133043-f58d848c139e && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: Present
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): High
Integrity (vulnerable system): None
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None

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

Packages

github.com/openbao/openbao

Timeline

Sep 22, 2026 Published
Oct 1, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-34fc-gh42-pj53 OpenBao's Recovery Mode Vulnerable To Token Leakage via Timing Attack	Critical	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-444v-8vxr-p36h OpenBao Agent Writes Secrets to Stdout	Low	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-59w7-v8rr-pr4p OpenBao's Templated Policies Allow Privilege Escalation via Wildcard Characters	High	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-8w8f-r2xv-4q4j OpenBao: Transit secrets engine crashes on key creation with `derived: true` for asymmetric key types	Medium	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-mwr2-wmgp-crj6 OpenBao's System Backend allows Unauthorized Management of the containing Namespace	Low	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-c36x-h252-g9x2 OpenBao: Cross-namespace lease revocation/renewal via canonical sys/leases/{revoke,renew} — incomplete fix of CVE-2026-45808	Low	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-6mwx-4547-5vc9 OpenBao: LDAPi ldaputil (wrong escape func)	Medium	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-7j6w-vvw2-5f9c OpenBao's Kerberos Auth Method Accumulates Unaccessible Tokens	Medium	Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao

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