CWE-863
Allowed-with-ReviewIncorrect Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Incomplete
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.
5554 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-3FWV-M349-PFJM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-02 21:30 – Updated: 2025-09-02 21:30rocket.chat Incorrect Authorization Information Disclosure Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of rocket.chat. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the web service, which listens on TCP port 3000 by default. The issue results from incorrect authorization. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to disclose information in the context of the application. Was ZDI-CAN-26517.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-7974"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-02T20:15:37Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "rocket.chat Incorrect Authorization Information Disclosure Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of rocket.chat. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the web service, which listens on TCP port 3000 by default. The issue results from incorrect authorization. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to disclose information in the context of the application. Was ZDI-CAN-26517.",
"id": "GHSA-3fwv-m349-pfjm",
"modified": "2025-09-02T21:30:58Z",
"published": "2025-09-02T21:30:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-7974"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-627"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3G2G-JMH9-PFCP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-01 00:30 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:33A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Ventura 13.7.5, macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5. A malicious app may be able to read or write to protected files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24233"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-31T23:15:20Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Ventura 13.7.5, macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5. A malicious app may be able to read or write to protected files.",
"id": "GHSA-3g2g-jmh9-pfcp",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:33:19Z",
"published": "2025-04-01T00:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122374"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122375"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/9"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3G3Q-575C-4343
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-12 15:30 – Updated: 2022-12-15 21:30Boa Web Server versions 0.94.13 through 0.94.14 fail to validate the correct security constraint on the HEAD HTTP method allowing everyone to bypass the Basic Authorization mechanism.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-45956"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-12T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Boa Web Server versions 0.94.13 through 0.94.14 fail to validate the correct security constraint on the HEAD HTTP method allowing everyone to bypass the Basic Authorization mechanism.",
"id": "GHSA-3g3q-575c-4343",
"modified": "2022-12-15T21:30:31Z",
"published": "2022-12-12T15:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-45956"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/169962/Boa-Web-Server-0.94.13-0.94.14-Authentication-Bypass.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3G62-9QPR-J338
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:25 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:25In JetBrains TeamCity before 2020.1, users are able to assign more permissions than they have.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15826"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-08-08T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In JetBrains TeamCity before 2020.1, users are able to assign more permissions than they have.",
"id": "GHSA-3g62-9qpr-j338",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:25:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:25:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15826"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.jetbrains.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2020/08/06/jetbrains-security-bulletin-q2-2020"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3G6V-2R68-PRFC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-17 14:01 – Updated: 2026-06-17 14:01Summary
There is a high severity vulnerability in Traefik's Kubernetes Gateway provider affecting the crossProviderNamespaces allowlist. For HTTPRoute rules that declare multiple (WRR) backendRefs, Traefik evaluates the allowlist against the target backendRef.namespace instead of the route's own namespace. As a result, an HTTPRoute created in a namespace that is not allow-listed can reference a cross-provider TraefikService such as api@internal, dashboard@internal or rest@internal by pointing backendRef.namespace at an allow-listed namespace covered by a Gateway API ReferenceGrant, exposing internal Traefik services on the data plane. Exploitation requires the ability to create an accepted HTTPRoute and a matching ReferenceGrant from an allow-listed namespace ; it does not require any change to Traefik static configuration, RBAC, or the deployment itself.
Patches
- https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.6.21
- https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.5
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please open an issue.
Original Description # Summary The Kubernetes Gateway provider's `crossProviderNamespaces` option is documented as restricting which Gateway API route namespaces may declare `TraefikService` backendRefs. For `HTTPRoute` rules with multiple backendRefs, Traefik checks this allowlist against `backendRef.namespace` instead of the `HTTPRoute` namespace. A route in a namespace that is not allow-listed can therefore add `api@internal` to the generated WRR service by setting `backendRef.namespace` to an allow-listed namespace, as long as a normal Gateway API `ReferenceGrant` permits that cross-namespace reference. Verified affected versions: - `v3.7.1` (`fa49e2bcad7ffd8a80accdf1fae1ae480913d93d`) - current source/master tested by me (`29406d42898547f1ffabd904f66af06c212740cf`) # Expected Behavior With:providers:
kubernetesGateway:
crossProviderNamespaces:
- trusted
only Gateway API routes whose own namespace is `trusted` should be allowed to declare `TraefikService` backendRefs such as `api@internal`, `dashboard@internal`, or `rest@internal`.
An `HTTPRoute` in namespace `attacker` should not be able to expose an internal Traefik service by setting:
backendRefs:
- group: traefik.io
kind: TraefikService
name: api@internal
namespace: trusted
# Actual Behavior
For an `HTTPRoute` in namespace `attacker` with two backendRefs, Traefik generates a WRR service containing:
[api@internal attacker-whoami-http-80]
even though `crossProviderNamespaces` only allows `trusted`.
# Threat Model
This does not require changing Traefik static configuration or Traefik process state. The relevant boundary is the Kubernetes Gateway provider's `crossProviderNamespaces` policy: namespaces outside the allowlist should not be able to declare cross-provider `TraefikService` backendRefs.
The precondition is a Gateway API environment where an untrusted or less-trusted namespace can create `HTTPRoute` objects accepted by a Gateway, and a namespace in the `crossProviderNamespaces` allowlist has a matching `ReferenceGrant`. `ReferenceGrant` should satisfy Gateway API cross-namespace reference rules, but it should not override Traefik's separate provider-level namespace allowlist for cross-provider internal services.
A Gateway API `ReferenceGrant` should be treated as necessary but not sufficient for this case. It authorizes the cross-namespace object reference under Gateway API rules, but Traefik's `crossProviderNamespaces` option is an additional Traefik-specific security control for cross-provider `TraefikService` backendRefs, especially `@internal` services. Therefore a `ReferenceGrant` from `trusted` must not make a route in `attacker` equivalent to a route whose own namespace is `trusted`.
# Required Attacker Capability
Required:
- create or modify an `HTTPRoute` in namespace `attacker`;
- have that `HTTPRoute` accepted by a `Gateway`;
- rely on an existing `ReferenceGrant` from an allow-listed namespace, or on a delegated namespace setup where such `ReferenceGrant` objects are managed separately from Traefik's provider configuration.
Not required:
- modifying Traefik static configuration;
- modifying the Traefik deployment or Traefik RBAC;
- modifying resources in the Traefik deployment namespace;
- modifying `providers.kubernetesGateway.crossProviderNamespaces`;
- enabling `api.insecure`;
- exposing the dashboard/API entrypoint directly.
# Documentation Evidence
The documented boundary is the namespace of the Gateway API route/resource that declares the cross-provider reference, not the namespace named in `backendRef.namespace`.
The Kubernetes Gateway provider option is documented as:
List of namespaces from which Gateway API routes (HTTPRoute, TCPRoute, TLSRoute) are allowed to declare a backendRef of kind TraefikService.
The migration notes also describe the security reason for the option:
those references ... allow a user to cross namespace boundaries, as well as exposing @internal services, that only the operator should be able to expose.
and the documented behavior is:
["ns-a"] | Only Kubernetes resources in the listed namespaces can declare cross-provider references.
The provider struct uses the same route-namespace wording:
CrossProviderNamespaces []string `description:"List of namespaces from which Gateway API routes are allowed to declare TraefikService backendRef references." ...`
The reproduced route kind is `HTTPRoute`; no Gateway API experimental-channel resources are required for the PoC.
# PoC
I validated the issue end-to-end in a local `kind` cluster with Traefik `v3.7.1`, real Gateway API CRDs, real Kubernetes `Gateway`, `HTTPRoute`, and `ReferenceGrant` resources, and HTTP requests to Traefik's normal `web` entrypoint.
The complete local reproducer I used is a self-contained `kind` PoC with these files:
external-repro-kind/kind-config.yaml
external-repro-kind/traefik-v371.yaml
external-repro-kind/gateway-exploit.yaml
external-repro-kind/run-kind-repro.sh
Run command:
./external-repro-kind/run-kind-repro.sh
The script creates a local `kind` cluster, loads local `traefik:v3.7.1` and `traefik/whoami:v1.11.0` images, installs Gateway API CRDs, deploys Traefik and the PoC Gateway resources, sends the control and exploit `curl` requests to `127.0.0.1:18080`, prints route status, and deletes the cluster on exit.
Traefik was started with:
--api=true
--api.dashboard=true
--api.insecure=false
--providers.kubernetesgateway=true
--providers.kubernetesgateway.crossprovidernamespaces=trusted
The local host entrypoint was:
127.0.0.1:18080 -> kind NodePort -> Traefik web entrypoint
The target namespace has a normal Gateway API `ReferenceGrant`:
apiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1beta1
kind: ReferenceGrant
metadata:
name: allow-attacker-to-traefikservice
namespace: trusted
spec:
from:
- group: gateway.networking.k8s.io
kind: HTTPRoute
namespace: attacker
to:
- group: traefik.io
kind: TraefikService
Positive control:
apiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1
kind: HTTPRoute
metadata:
name: single-backend-control
namespace: attacker
spec:
parentRefs:
- name: shared-gateway
namespace: default
hostnames:
- control.localhost
rules:
- matches:
- path:
type: PathPrefix
value: /api
backendRefs:
- group: traefik.io
kind: TraefikService
name: api@internal
namespace: trusted
port: 80
weight: 1
Bypass:
apiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1
kind: HTTPRoute
metadata:
name: mixed-backend-bypass
namespace: attacker
spec:
parentRefs:
- name: shared-gateway
namespace: default
hostnames:
- exploit.localhost
rules:
- matches:
- path:
type: PathPrefix
value: /api
backendRefs:
- group: traefik.io
kind: TraefikService
name: api@internal
namespace: trusted
port: 80
weight: 1000000
- group: ""
kind: Service
name: whoami
port: 80
weight: 1
Observed external result:
control: single-backend route from attacker namespace should not expose api@internal
control status: 404
404 page not found
exploit: mixed backendRef route from attacker namespace exposes api@internal
exploit returned Traefik API JSON
api@internal status: enabled
weighted members:
api@internal 1000000
attacker-whoami-http-80 1
The `HTTPRoute` status shows the boundary difference:
single-backend-control:
Accepted=True
ResolvedRefs=False
Reason=RefNotPermitted
Message=Cannot load HTTPRoute BackendRef api@internal: internal service reference is not allowed: HTTPRoute namespace "attacker" is not in crossProviderNamespaces
mixed-backend-bypass:
Accepted=True
ResolvedRefs=True
This is the externally visible security failure: the same route namespace and same `api@internal` backendRef are rejected in the single-backend path, but accepted in the mixed/WRR path and exposed on the data plane.
## Minimized Root Cause Test
I also created a provider-level regression test using Traefik's fake Kubernetes/Gateway clients. This does not rely on the Docker lab, dashboard exposure, or helper backends. It is useful as a minimal root-cause test, but the external `kind` PoC above is the primary impact reproduction.
Files:
- `probe/crossprovider_namespace_probe_test.go`
- `probe/cross_provider_namespace_probe.yml`
- `probe/cross_provider_namespace_single_control.yml`
Reproduction:
cp probe/crossprovider_namespace_probe_test.go pkg/provider/kubernetes/gateway/
cp probe/cross_provider_namespace_probe.yml pkg/provider/kubernetes/gateway/fixtures/httproute/
go test ./pkg/provider/kubernetes/gateway -run TestProbeCrossProviderNamespacesHTTPRouteBackendNamespaceBypass -count=1 -v
Observed output on both tested versions:
Messages: HTTPRoute namespace attacker must not expose api@internal when only trusted is allow-listed; members=[api@internal attacker-whoami-http-80]
The reproducer also includes a positive control:
=== RUN TestProbeCrossProviderNamespacesHTTPRouteSingleBackendControl
--- PASS: TestProbeCrossProviderNamespacesHTTPRouteSingleBackendControl
That control shows the single-backend internal-service code path rejects the setup correctly. The bypass appears when the same forbidden internal backend is placed in a mixed/WRR backendRef list.
# Root Cause
The single-internal-service path checks the route namespace:
case len(routeRule.BackendRefs) == 1 && isInternalService(routeRule.BackendRefs[0].BackendRef):
if !isCrossProviderNamespaceAllowed(p.CrossProviderNamespaces, route.Namespace) {
The mixed/multiple backendRef path calls `loadService`. In `loadService`, `namespace` is overwritten from `backendRef.Namespace`, then passed to `loadHTTPBackendRef`:
namespace := route.Namespace
if backendRef.Namespace != nil && *backendRef.Namespace != "" {
namespace = string(*backendRef.Namespace)
}
...
name, service, err := p.loadHTTPBackendRef(namespace, backendRef)
`loadHTTPBackendRef` then checks `crossProviderNamespaces` against this target namespace:
if *backendRef.Kind == "TraefikService" && strings.Contains(string(backendRef.Name), "@") {
if !isCrossProviderNamespaceAllowed(p.CrossProviderNamespaces, namespace) {
This lets a disallowed route namespace choose an allow-listed target namespace and pass the check.
# Impact
An untrusted route namespace may expose internal Traefik services through Gateway `HTTPRoute` despite being excluded from `crossProviderNamespaces`.
Potentially exposed internal services include:
- `api@internal`
- `dashboard@internal`
- `rest@internal`
This is a route isolation / internal service exposure / security option bypass. Practical severity depends on whether internal services are enabled and how Gateway `ReferenceGrant` delegation is used, but the observed behavior violates the documented security boundary of `crossProviderNamespaces`.
I also validated the concrete impact of the generated service graph in the local lab. The lab's intended safe baseline has the dashboard/API protected on the dashboard entrypoint:
Host: dashboard.localhost -> dashboard entrypoint /api/rawdata => 401 Unauthorized
Host: dashboard.localhost -> web entrypoint /api/rawdata => 404 Not Found
When a router on the normal web entrypoint references `api@internal`, the same API endpoint becomes unauthenticated:
Host: impact-crossprovider.localhost -> web entrypoint /api/rawdata => 200 OK
service: api@internal
A WRR service containing `api@internal` also exposes the API:
Host: impact-crossprovider-wrr.localhost -> web entrypoint /api/rawdata => 200 OK
weighted services:
api@internal 1000
echo-svc 1
This is the security consequence of the provider bug: a namespace that should be blocked by `crossProviderNamespaces` can make Traefik generate a service graph containing `api@internal` on a route it controls.
# Suggested Fix
For Gateway `HTTPRoute` `TraefikService` cross-provider backendRefs, validate `crossProviderNamespaces` against `route.Namespace` in all code paths, including mixed/WRR backendRefs.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.6.20"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/traefik/traefik/v3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.6.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/traefik/traefik/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.11.50"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/traefik/traefik"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.7.34"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.7.4"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/traefik/traefik/v3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.7.0-ea.1"
},
{
"fixed": "3.7.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54761"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-17T14:01:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThere is a high severity vulnerability in Traefik\u0027s Kubernetes Gateway provider affecting the `crossProviderNamespaces` allowlist. For `HTTPRoute` rules that declare multiple (WRR) backendRefs, Traefik evaluates the allowlist against the target `backendRef.namespace` instead of the route\u0027s own namespace. As a result, an `HTTPRoute` created in a namespace that is not allow-listed can reference a cross-provider `TraefikService` such as `api@internal`, `dashboard@internal` or `rest@internal` by pointing `backendRef.namespace` at an allow-listed namespace covered by a Gateway API `ReferenceGrant`, exposing internal Traefik services on the data plane. Exploitation requires the ability to create an accepted `HTTPRoute` and a matching `ReferenceGrant` from an allow-listed namespace ; it does not require any change to Traefik static configuration, RBAC, or the deployment itself.\n\n## Patches\n\n- https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.6.21\n- https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.5\n\n## For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please [open an issue](https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues).\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003eOriginal Description\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n# Summary\n\nThe Kubernetes Gateway provider\u0027s `crossProviderNamespaces` option is documented as restricting which Gateway API route namespaces may declare `TraefikService` backendRefs.\n\nFor `HTTPRoute` rules with multiple backendRefs, Traefik checks this allowlist against `backendRef.namespace` instead of the `HTTPRoute` namespace. A route in a namespace that is not allow-listed can therefore add `api@internal` to the generated WRR service by setting `backendRef.namespace` to an allow-listed namespace, as long as a normal Gateway API `ReferenceGrant` permits that cross-namespace reference.\n\nVerified affected versions:\n\n- `v3.7.1` (`fa49e2bcad7ffd8a80accdf1fae1ae480913d93d`)\n- current source/master tested by me (`29406d42898547f1ffabd904f66af06c212740cf`)\n\n# Expected Behavior\n\nWith:\n\n```yaml\nproviders:\n kubernetesGateway:\n crossProviderNamespaces:\n - trusted\n```\n\nonly Gateway API routes whose own namespace is `trusted` should be allowed to declare `TraefikService` backendRefs such as `api@internal`, `dashboard@internal`, or `rest@internal`.\n\nAn `HTTPRoute` in namespace `attacker` should not be able to expose an internal Traefik service by setting:\n\n```yaml\nbackendRefs:\n - group: traefik.io\n kind: TraefikService\n name: api@internal\n namespace: trusted\n```\n\n# Actual Behavior\n\nFor an `HTTPRoute` in namespace `attacker` with two backendRefs, Traefik generates a WRR service containing:\n\n```text\n[api@internal attacker-whoami-http-80]\n```\n\neven though `crossProviderNamespaces` only allows `trusted`.\n\n# Threat Model\n\nThis does not require changing Traefik static configuration or Traefik process state. The relevant boundary is the Kubernetes Gateway provider\u0027s `crossProviderNamespaces` policy: namespaces outside the allowlist should not be able to declare cross-provider `TraefikService` backendRefs.\n\nThe precondition is a Gateway API environment where an untrusted or less-trusted namespace can create `HTTPRoute` objects accepted by a Gateway, and a namespace in the `crossProviderNamespaces` allowlist has a matching `ReferenceGrant`. `ReferenceGrant` should satisfy Gateway API cross-namespace reference rules, but it should not override Traefik\u0027s separate provider-level namespace allowlist for cross-provider internal services.\n\nA Gateway API `ReferenceGrant` should be treated as necessary but not sufficient for this case. It authorizes the cross-namespace object reference under Gateway API rules, but Traefik\u0027s `crossProviderNamespaces` option is an additional Traefik-specific security control for cross-provider `TraefikService` backendRefs, especially `@internal` services. Therefore a `ReferenceGrant` from `trusted` must not make a route in `attacker` equivalent to a route whose own namespace is `trusted`.\n\n# Required Attacker Capability\n\nRequired:\n\n- create or modify an `HTTPRoute` in namespace `attacker`;\n- have that `HTTPRoute` accepted by a `Gateway`;\n- rely on an existing `ReferenceGrant` from an allow-listed namespace, or on a delegated namespace setup where such `ReferenceGrant` objects are managed separately from Traefik\u0027s provider configuration.\n\nNot required:\n\n- modifying Traefik static configuration;\n- modifying the Traefik deployment or Traefik RBAC;\n- modifying resources in the Traefik deployment namespace;\n- modifying `providers.kubernetesGateway.crossProviderNamespaces`;\n- enabling `api.insecure`;\n- exposing the dashboard/API entrypoint directly.\n\n# Documentation Evidence\n\nThe documented boundary is the namespace of the Gateway API route/resource that declares the cross-provider reference, not the namespace named in `backendRef.namespace`.\n\nThe Kubernetes Gateway provider option is documented as:\n\n```text\nList of namespaces from which Gateway API routes (HTTPRoute, TCPRoute, TLSRoute) are allowed to declare a backendRef of kind TraefikService.\n```\n\nThe migration notes also describe the security reason for the option:\n\n```text\nthose references ... allow a user to cross namespace boundaries, as well as exposing @internal services, that only the operator should be able to expose.\n```\n\nand the documented behavior is:\n\n```text\n[\"ns-a\"] | Only Kubernetes resources in the listed namespaces can declare cross-provider references.\n```\n\nThe provider struct uses the same route-namespace wording:\n\n```go\nCrossProviderNamespaces []string `description:\"List of namespaces from which Gateway API routes are allowed to declare TraefikService backendRef references.\" ...`\n```\n\nThe reproduced route kind is `HTTPRoute`; no Gateway API experimental-channel resources are required for the PoC.\n\n# PoC\n\nI validated the issue end-to-end in a local `kind` cluster with Traefik `v3.7.1`, real Gateway API CRDs, real Kubernetes `Gateway`, `HTTPRoute`, and `ReferenceGrant` resources, and HTTP requests to Traefik\u0027s normal `web` entrypoint.\n\nThe complete local reproducer I used is a self-contained `kind` PoC with these files:\n\n```text\nexternal-repro-kind/kind-config.yaml\nexternal-repro-kind/traefik-v371.yaml\nexternal-repro-kind/gateway-exploit.yaml\nexternal-repro-kind/run-kind-repro.sh\n```\n\nRun command:\n\n```bash\n./external-repro-kind/run-kind-repro.sh\n```\n\nThe script creates a local `kind` cluster, loads local `traefik:v3.7.1` and `traefik/whoami:v1.11.0` images, installs Gateway API CRDs, deploys Traefik and the PoC Gateway resources, sends the control and exploit `curl` requests to `127.0.0.1:18080`, prints route status, and deletes the cluster on exit.\n\nTraefik was started with:\n\n```text\n--api=true\n--api.dashboard=true\n--api.insecure=false\n--providers.kubernetesgateway=true\n--providers.kubernetesgateway.crossprovidernamespaces=trusted\n```\n\nThe local host entrypoint was:\n\n```text\n127.0.0.1:18080 -\u003e kind NodePort -\u003e Traefik web entrypoint\n```\n\nThe target namespace has a normal Gateway API `ReferenceGrant`:\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1beta1\nkind: ReferenceGrant\nmetadata:\n name: allow-attacker-to-traefikservice\n namespace: trusted\nspec:\n from:\n - group: gateway.networking.k8s.io\n kind: HTTPRoute\n namespace: attacker\n to:\n - group: traefik.io\n kind: TraefikService\n```\n\nPositive control:\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1\nkind: HTTPRoute\nmetadata:\n name: single-backend-control\n namespace: attacker\nspec:\n parentRefs:\n - name: shared-gateway\n namespace: default\n hostnames:\n - control.localhost\n rules:\n - matches:\n - path:\n type: PathPrefix\n value: /api\n backendRefs:\n - group: traefik.io\n kind: TraefikService\n name: api@internal\n namespace: trusted\n port: 80\n weight: 1\n```\n\nBypass:\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1\nkind: HTTPRoute\nmetadata:\n name: mixed-backend-bypass\n namespace: attacker\nspec:\n parentRefs:\n - name: shared-gateway\n namespace: default\n hostnames:\n - exploit.localhost\n rules:\n - matches:\n - path:\n type: PathPrefix\n value: /api\n backendRefs:\n - group: traefik.io\n kind: TraefikService\n name: api@internal\n namespace: trusted\n port: 80\n weight: 1000000\n - group: \"\"\n kind: Service\n name: whoami\n port: 80\n weight: 1\n```\n\nObserved external result:\n\n```text\ncontrol: single-backend route from attacker namespace should not expose api@internal\ncontrol status: 404\n404 page not found\n\nexploit: mixed backendRef route from attacker namespace exposes api@internal\nexploit returned Traefik API JSON\napi@internal status: enabled\nweighted members:\napi@internal 1000000\nattacker-whoami-http-80 1\n```\n\nThe `HTTPRoute` status shows the boundary difference:\n\n```text\nsingle-backend-control:\n Accepted=True\n ResolvedRefs=False\n Reason=RefNotPermitted\n Message=Cannot load HTTPRoute BackendRef api@internal: internal service reference is not allowed: HTTPRoute namespace \"attacker\" is not in crossProviderNamespaces\n\nmixed-backend-bypass:\n Accepted=True\n ResolvedRefs=True\n```\n\nThis is the externally visible security failure: the same route namespace and same `api@internal` backendRef are rejected in the single-backend path, but accepted in the mixed/WRR path and exposed on the data plane.\n\n## Minimized Root Cause Test\n\nI also created a provider-level regression test using Traefik\u0027s fake Kubernetes/Gateway clients. This does not rely on the Docker lab, dashboard exposure, or helper backends. It is useful as a minimal root-cause test, but the external `kind` PoC above is the primary impact reproduction.\n\nFiles:\n\n- `probe/crossprovider_namespace_probe_test.go`\n- `probe/cross_provider_namespace_probe.yml`\n- `probe/cross_provider_namespace_single_control.yml`\n\nReproduction:\n\n```bash\ncp probe/crossprovider_namespace_probe_test.go pkg/provider/kubernetes/gateway/\ncp probe/cross_provider_namespace_probe.yml pkg/provider/kubernetes/gateway/fixtures/httproute/\ngo test ./pkg/provider/kubernetes/gateway -run TestProbeCrossProviderNamespacesHTTPRouteBackendNamespaceBypass -count=1 -v\n```\n\nObserved output on both tested versions:\n\n```text\nMessages: HTTPRoute namespace attacker must not expose api@internal when only trusted is allow-listed; members=[api@internal attacker-whoami-http-80]\n```\n\nThe reproducer also includes a positive control:\n\n```text\n=== RUN TestProbeCrossProviderNamespacesHTTPRouteSingleBackendControl\n--- PASS: TestProbeCrossProviderNamespacesHTTPRouteSingleBackendControl\n```\n\nThat control shows the single-backend internal-service code path rejects the setup correctly. The bypass appears when the same forbidden internal backend is placed in a mixed/WRR backendRef list.\n\n# Root Cause\n\nThe single-internal-service path checks the route namespace:\n\n```go\ncase len(routeRule.BackendRefs) == 1 \u0026\u0026 isInternalService(routeRule.BackendRefs[0].BackendRef):\n if !isCrossProviderNamespaceAllowed(p.CrossProviderNamespaces, route.Namespace) {\n```\n\nThe mixed/multiple backendRef path calls `loadService`. In `loadService`, `namespace` is overwritten from `backendRef.Namespace`, then passed to `loadHTTPBackendRef`:\n\n```go\nnamespace := route.Namespace\nif backendRef.Namespace != nil \u0026\u0026 *backendRef.Namespace != \"\" {\n namespace = string(*backendRef.Namespace)\n}\n...\nname, service, err := p.loadHTTPBackendRef(namespace, backendRef)\n```\n\n`loadHTTPBackendRef` then checks `crossProviderNamespaces` against this target namespace:\n\n```go\nif *backendRef.Kind == \"TraefikService\" \u0026\u0026 strings.Contains(string(backendRef.Name), \"@\") {\n if !isCrossProviderNamespaceAllowed(p.CrossProviderNamespaces, namespace) {\n```\n\nThis lets a disallowed route namespace choose an allow-listed target namespace and pass the check.\n\n# Impact\n\nAn untrusted route namespace may expose internal Traefik services through Gateway `HTTPRoute` despite being excluded from `crossProviderNamespaces`.\n\nPotentially exposed internal services include:\n\n- `api@internal`\n- `dashboard@internal`\n- `rest@internal`\n\nThis is a route isolation / internal service exposure / security option bypass. Practical severity depends on whether internal services are enabled and how Gateway `ReferenceGrant` delegation is used, but the observed behavior violates the documented security boundary of `crossProviderNamespaces`.\n\nI also validated the concrete impact of the generated service graph in the local lab. The lab\u0027s intended safe baseline has the dashboard/API protected on the dashboard entrypoint:\n\n```text\nHost: dashboard.localhost -\u003e dashboard entrypoint /api/rawdata =\u003e 401 Unauthorized\nHost: dashboard.localhost -\u003e web entrypoint /api/rawdata =\u003e 404 Not Found\n```\n\nWhen a router on the normal web entrypoint references `api@internal`, the same API endpoint becomes unauthenticated:\n\n```text\nHost: impact-crossprovider.localhost -\u003e web entrypoint /api/rawdata =\u003e 200 OK\nservice: api@internal\n```\n\nA WRR service containing `api@internal` also exposes the API:\n\n```text\nHost: impact-crossprovider-wrr.localhost -\u003e web entrypoint /api/rawdata =\u003e 200 OK\nweighted services:\napi@internal 1000\necho-svc 1\n```\n\nThis is the security consequence of the provider bug: a namespace that should be blocked by `crossProviderNamespaces` can make Traefik generate a service graph containing `api@internal` on a route it controls.\n\n# Suggested Fix\n\nFor Gateway `HTTPRoute` `TraefikService` cross-provider backendRefs, validate `crossProviderNamespaces` against `route.Namespace` in all code paths, including mixed/WRR backendRefs.\n\n\u003c/details\u003e\n\n---",
"id": "GHSA-3g6v-2r68-prfc",
"modified": "2026-06-17T14:01:48Z",
"published": "2026-06-17T14:01:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik/security/advisories/GHSA-3g6v-2r68-prfc"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.6.21"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Traefik: Kubernetes Gateway crossProviderNamespaces bypass allows HTTPRoute outside the allowlist to expose internal Traefik services"
}
GHSA-3G7M-G8QM-X6J5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:12 – Updated: 2025-11-07 23:21Magento Commerce versions 2.4.2 (and earlier), 2.4.2-p1 (and earlier) and 2.3.7 (and earlier) are affected by an improper input validation vulnerability via the quoteId parameter. An attacker can abuse this vulnerability to disclose sensitive information.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/project-community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.7-p1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.3.7"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.2-p1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.2-p2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.2"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-36039"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-11-07T23:21:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-01T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Magento Commerce versions 2.4.2 (and earlier), 2.4.2-p1 (and earlier) and 2.3.7 (and earlier) are affected by an improper input validation vulnerability via the `quoteId` parameter. An attacker can abuse this vulnerability to disclose sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-3g7m-g8qm-x6j5",
"modified": "2025-11-07T23:21:00Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:12:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36039"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb21-64.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Magento discloses sensitive information"
}
GHSA-3GFJ-FXX4-F22W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-08 22:31 – Updated: 2022-11-10 14:32Overview
During our internal security assessment, it was discovered that OpenFGA versions v0.2.4 and prior are vulnerable to authorization bypass under certain conditions.
Am I Affected?
You are affected by this vulnerability if you are using openfga/openfga version v0.2.4 or prior, and have tuples where the user field is set to a userset e.g. folder:test#owner, and the tuple's relation is used on the right-hand side of a from statement.
How to fix that?
Upgrade to version 0.2.5.
Backward Compatibility
This update is not backward compatible.
Any tuples where the user field is set to a userset, and the tuple's relation is used on the right-hand side of a from statement have to be rewritten.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.2.4"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.2.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-39352"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-11-08T22:31:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-08T08:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Overview\nDuring our internal security assessment, it was discovered that OpenFGA versions v0.2.4 and prior are vulnerable to authorization bypass under certain conditions.\n\n### Am I Affected?\nYou are affected by this vulnerability if you are using `openfga/openfga` version v0.2.4 or prior, and have tuples where the `user` field is set to a `userset` e.g. `folder:test#owner`, and the tuple\u0027s relation is used on the right-hand side of a `from` statement.\n\n### How to fix that?\nUpgrade to version 0.2.5.\n\n### Backward Compatibility\nThis update is not backward compatible.\nAny tuples where the `user` field is set to a `userset`, and the tuple\u0027s relation is used on the right-hand side of a `from` statement have to be rewritten.",
"id": "GHSA-3gfj-fxx4-f22w",
"modified": "2022-11-10T14:32:09Z",
"published": "2022-11-08T22:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/security/advisories/GHSA-3gfj-fxx4-f22w"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-39352"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/commit/776e80505e8d184b2286acc8268d8d74f36a9984"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/releases/tag/v0.2.5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenFGA Authorization Bypass"
}
GHSA-3GH3-7V6R-4Q8W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-05 21:32 – Updated: 2026-02-05 21:32Tanium addressed an improper access controls vulnerability in Reputation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-15342"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-05T19:15:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Tanium addressed an improper access controls vulnerability in Reputation.",
"id": "GHSA-3gh3-7v6r-4q8w",
"modified": "2026-02-05T21:32:42Z",
"published": "2026-02-05T21:32:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-15342"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.tanium.com/TAN-2025-030"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3GJX-HG47-FQ76
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-09 00:30 – Updated: 2025-05-09 00:30Improper Authorization in Azure Automation allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-29827"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-08T23:15:52Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization in Azure Automation allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-3gjx-hg47-fq76",
"modified": "2025-05-09T00:30:35Z",
"published": "2025-05-09T00:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-29827"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-29827"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3GP5-Q4JW-3V94
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-12 18:28 – Updated: 2026-06-12 18:28Summary
Budibase stores external REST datasource credentials server-side and documents that database credentials are applied server-side and are not exposed in the UI. The REST datasource implementation redacts stored Basic/Bearer/OAuth2 auth secrets before returning datasource data to clients. However, the single-datasource GET and PUT routes are guarded by generic TABLE READ, not by Builder/Admin permission or datasource-specific ownership/resource checks.
The built-in Basic app user role maps to the WRITE permission set, which includes table read/write and query write. A Basic user can therefore read an existing REST datasource, receive redacted authConfigs values, submit an update that changes only config.url while keeping the redacted placeholders, and trigger an existing saved relative-path REST query. During update, mergeConfigs() restores the old stored secret when it sees the redaction placeholder. During query execution, Budibase prefixes the attacker-controlled datasource config.url to the relative query path and applies the resolved stored auth headers. The result is server-side disclosure of the builder-configured REST Authorization secret to an attacker-controlled listener.
Source evidence
packages/server/src/api/routes/datasource.ts: datasource list/create/delete routes are onbuilderRoutes, butGET /api/datasources/:datasourceIdandPUT /api/datasources/:datasourceIdare inauthorizedRoutesguarded only byPermissionType.TABLEandPermissionLevel.READ.packages/server/src/api/routes/datasource.ts: the:datasourceIdroutes do not attach datasource-specific resource authorization.packages/backend-core/src/security/roles.ts: built-in Basic user maps toBuiltinPermissionID.WRITE.packages/backend-core/src/security/permissions.ts:WRITEgrantsREAD/EXECUTElevels and includesQUERY WRITEandTABLE WRITE.packages/server/src/api/controllers/datasource.ts:datasourceController.updatereads the stored datasource, mergesctx.request.bodyinto it, writes the result back, and returns a redacted copy.packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/datasources/datasources.ts:removeSecrets()redacts REST Basic/Bearer/OAuth2 secrets toPASSWORD_REPLACEMENT.packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/datasources/datasources.ts:mergeConfigs()restores the old stored auth-secret field when the update body sends the redaction placeholder for the same auth config.packages/server/src/integrations/rest.ts: relative REST query paths are prefixed with datasourceconfig.url.packages/server/src/integrations/rest.ts: REST execution resolves the selected auth config and applies the resulting auth headers to the outbound request.packages/server/src/api/routes/query.ts: saved query executionPOST /api/v2/queries/:queryIdis guarded byQUERY WRITE, which the Basic role has through theWRITEpermission set.
Reproduction outline
No production systems were tested. This is source-backed and has a local static verifier plus a proof helper for an already-running authorized instance.
- Deploy a current Budibase instance.
- As a builder/admin, create and publish an app.
- As the builder/admin, create a REST datasource with:
config.urlset to a benign legitimate API base URL.- a stored REST auth config containing a sentinel secret, such as a Bearer token
BUDIBASE_REST_TOKEN_SENTINEL. - As the builder/admin, create a saved REST query that uses a relative path and that auth config.
- Add a non-builder Basic app user.
- As the Basic user, confirm negative controls:
- Builder-only datasource list/create/preview routes are denied.
- The user is not a builder/admin.
- As the Basic user, call
GET /api/datasources/{datasourceId}. The response returns the datasource and redacted auth placeholders, not the raw secret. - As the Basic user, call
PUT /api/datasources/{datasourceId}with the same redacted datasource body but withconfig.urlchanged to an attacker-controlled HTTP listener. - As the Basic user, execute the saved query with
POST /api/v2/queries/{queryId}. - Expected vulnerable result: the attacker listener receives the server-side REST request with the preserved stored Authorization material, even though the Basic user never knew the raw secret and should not be able to administer datasource credentials.
Local source verifier:
python3 docker-proofs/s60/verify_budibase_basic_user_datasource_source_path.py
Expected success line:
SOURCE_PATH_VERIFIED budibase_basic_user_datasource_rest_secret_exfil
Observed May 1, 2026:
origin/masterwas8e6bf89acf1f602f3334592c4c8cd14e79f5362a.- Latest release was
3.37.2from Apr 30, 2026. - The source verifier passed and confirmed the route, role, redaction, merge, URL-prefixing, auth-header, and saved-query execution conditions.
Proof-assist helper:
python3 docker-proofs/s60/proof_budibase_basic_user_datasource_update_rest_secret_exfil.py \
--base-url http://127.0.0.1:10000 \
--app-id <published-app-id> \
--datasource-id <rest-datasource-id> \
--query-id <saved-relative-rest-query-id> \
--cookie '<basic-user-session-cookie>' \
--expected-secret BUDIBASE_REST_TOKEN_SENTINEL
The helper does not start, stop, or delete containers/resources. It targets an authorized already-running instance, rewrites only config.url, captures the outbound Authorization material, and restores the original datasource by default.
Impact
This breaks the intended application-user versus builder/admin boundary for external REST datasource credentials. A Basic app user should be able to use published app functionality, but should not be able to administer datasource connection settings or extract builder-configured REST auth secrets. In a realistic internal-tool deployment, REST datasource auth configs often contain bearer tokens, API keys, Basic credentials, OAuth client secrets, service account tokens, or integration credentials for ticketing, CRM, ERP, security, and operational systems.
An attacker with only Basic app-user access to an app that uses an authenticated REST datasource can redirect future query traffic to an attacker-controlled endpoint and collect the preserved server-side Authorization header. This is distinct from public REST datasource SSRF issues because the core impact is stored credential disclosure across the role boundary, and it works with an external attacker-controlled URL rather than depending on internal-network reachability.
Remediation ideas
- Move
GET/PUT /api/datasources/:datasourceIdbehind Builder/Admin datasource permissions, or add datasource-specific resource authorization. - Do not allow non-builder app users to update datasource
config,authConfigs, base URL, default headers, or plugin connection settings. - Split non-sensitive datasource metadata reads from credential-bearing/admin datasource reads.
- Treat redaction placeholders as valid only in trusted builder/admin update flows.
- Consider rotating REST datasource auth secrets for affected deployments after patching.
Duplicate/nearby public issue notes
Public triage found known Budibase REST datasource SSRF and protected-endpoint auth-bypass CVEs, but no obvious public duplicate for this specific Basic app-user PUT /api/datasources/:id role-boundary issue combined with preserved REST authConfigs secret exfiltration through a changed datasource base URL.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@budibase/server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.39.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48152"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-12T18:28:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-27T18:16:27Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nBudibase stores external REST datasource credentials server-side and documents that database credentials are applied server-side and are not exposed in the UI. The REST datasource implementation redacts stored Basic/Bearer/OAuth2 auth secrets before returning datasource data to clients. However, the single-datasource `GET` and `PUT` routes are guarded by generic `TABLE READ`, not by Builder/Admin permission or datasource-specific ownership/resource checks.\n\nThe built-in Basic app user role maps to the `WRITE` permission set, which includes table read/write and query write. A Basic user can therefore read an existing REST datasource, receive redacted `authConfigs` values, submit an update that changes only `config.url` while keeping the redacted placeholders, and trigger an existing saved relative-path REST query. During update, `mergeConfigs()` restores the old stored secret when it sees the redaction placeholder. During query execution, Budibase prefixes the attacker-controlled datasource `config.url` to the relative query path and applies the resolved stored auth headers. The result is server-side disclosure of the builder-configured REST Authorization secret to an attacker-controlled listener.\n\n### Source evidence\n- `packages/server/src/api/routes/datasource.ts`: datasource list/create/delete routes are on `builderRoutes`, but `GET /api/datasources/:datasourceId` and `PUT /api/datasources/:datasourceId` are in `authorizedRoutes` guarded only by `PermissionType.TABLE` and `PermissionLevel.READ`.\n- `packages/server/src/api/routes/datasource.ts`: the `:datasourceId` routes do not attach datasource-specific resource authorization.\n- `packages/backend-core/src/security/roles.ts`: built-in Basic user maps to `BuiltinPermissionID.WRITE`.\n- `packages/backend-core/src/security/permissions.ts`: `WRITE` grants `READ`/`EXECUTE` levels and includes `QUERY WRITE` and `TABLE WRITE`.\n- `packages/server/src/api/controllers/datasource.ts`: `datasourceController.update` reads the stored datasource, merges `ctx.request.body` into it, writes the result back, and returns a redacted copy.\n- `packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/datasources/datasources.ts`: `removeSecrets()` redacts REST Basic/Bearer/OAuth2 secrets to `PASSWORD_REPLACEMENT`.\n- `packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/datasources/datasources.ts`: `mergeConfigs()` restores the old stored auth-secret field when the update body sends the redaction placeholder for the same auth config.\n- `packages/server/src/integrations/rest.ts`: relative REST query paths are prefixed with datasource `config.url`.\n- `packages/server/src/integrations/rest.ts`: REST execution resolves the selected auth config and applies the resulting auth headers to the outbound request.\n- `packages/server/src/api/routes/query.ts`: saved query execution `POST /api/v2/queries/:queryId` is guarded by `QUERY WRITE`, which the Basic role has through the `WRITE` permission set.\n\n### Reproduction outline\nNo production systems were tested. This is source-backed and has a local static verifier plus a proof helper for an already-running authorized instance.\n\n1. Deploy a current Budibase instance.\n2. As a builder/admin, create and publish an app.\n3. As the builder/admin, create a REST datasource with:\n - `config.url` set to a benign legitimate API base URL.\n - a stored REST auth config containing a sentinel secret, such as a Bearer token `BUDIBASE_REST_TOKEN_SENTINEL`.\n4. As the builder/admin, create a saved REST query that uses a relative path and that auth config.\n5. Add a non-builder Basic app user.\n6. As the Basic user, confirm negative controls:\n - Builder-only datasource list/create/preview routes are denied.\n - The user is not a builder/admin.\n7. As the Basic user, call `GET /api/datasources/{datasourceId}`. The response returns the datasource and redacted auth placeholders, not the raw secret.\n8. As the Basic user, call `PUT /api/datasources/{datasourceId}` with the same redacted datasource body but with `config.url` changed to an attacker-controlled HTTP listener.\n9. As the Basic user, execute the saved query with `POST /api/v2/queries/{queryId}`.\n10. Expected vulnerable result: the attacker listener receives the server-side REST request with the preserved stored Authorization material, even though the Basic user never knew the raw secret and should not be able to administer datasource credentials.\n\nLocal source verifier:\n\n```bash\npython3 docker-proofs/s60/verify_budibase_basic_user_datasource_source_path.py\n```\n\nExpected success line:\n\n```text\nSOURCE_PATH_VERIFIED budibase_basic_user_datasource_rest_secret_exfil\n```\n\nObserved May 1, 2026:\n\n- `origin/master` was `8e6bf89acf1f602f3334592c4c8cd14e79f5362a`.\n- Latest release was `3.37.2` from Apr 30, 2026.\n- The source verifier passed and confirmed the route, role, redaction, merge, URL-prefixing, auth-header, and saved-query execution conditions.\n\nProof-assist helper:\n\n```bash\npython3 docker-proofs/s60/proof_budibase_basic_user_datasource_update_rest_secret_exfil.py \\\n --base-url http://127.0.0.1:10000 \\\n --app-id \u003cpublished-app-id\u003e \\\n --datasource-id \u003crest-datasource-id\u003e \\\n --query-id \u003csaved-relative-rest-query-id\u003e \\\n --cookie \u0027\u003cbasic-user-session-cookie\u003e\u0027 \\\n --expected-secret BUDIBASE_REST_TOKEN_SENTINEL\n```\n\nThe helper does not start, stop, or delete containers/resources. It targets an authorized already-running instance, rewrites only `config.url`, captures the outbound Authorization material, and restores the original datasource by default.\n\n### Impact\nThis breaks the intended application-user versus builder/admin boundary for external REST datasource credentials. A Basic app user should be able to use published app functionality, but should not be able to administer datasource connection settings or extract builder-configured REST auth secrets. In a realistic internal-tool deployment, REST datasource auth configs often contain bearer tokens, API keys, Basic credentials, OAuth client secrets, service account tokens, or integration credentials for ticketing, CRM, ERP, security, and operational systems.\n\nAn attacker with only Basic app-user access to an app that uses an authenticated REST datasource can redirect future query traffic to an attacker-controlled endpoint and collect the preserved server-side Authorization header. This is distinct from public REST datasource SSRF issues because the core impact is stored credential disclosure across the role boundary, and it works with an external attacker-controlled URL rather than depending on internal-network reachability.\n\n### Remediation ideas\n- Move `GET`/`PUT /api/datasources/:datasourceId` behind Builder/Admin datasource permissions, or add datasource-specific resource authorization.\n- Do not allow non-builder app users to update datasource `config`, `authConfigs`, base URL, default headers, or plugin connection settings.\n- Split non-sensitive datasource metadata reads from credential-bearing/admin datasource reads.\n- Treat redaction placeholders as valid only in trusted builder/admin update flows.\n- Consider rotating REST datasource auth secrets for affected deployments after patching.\n\n### Duplicate/nearby public issue notes\nPublic triage found known Budibase REST datasource SSRF and protected-endpoint auth-bypass CVEs, but no obvious public duplicate for this specific Basic app-user `PUT /api/datasources/:id` role-boundary issue combined with preserved REST `authConfigs` secret exfiltration through a changed datasource base URL.",
"id": "GHSA-3gp5-q4jw-3v94",
"modified": "2026-06-12T18:28:40Z",
"published": "2026-06-12T18:28:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Budibase/budibase/security/advisories/GHSA-3gp5-q4jw-3v94"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48152"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Budibase/budibase"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Budibase: Basic app users can exfiltrate stored REST datasource auth by rewriting datasource base URL"
}
Mitigation
- 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.
Mitigation
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].
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- 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].
Mitigation
- 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.
Mitigation
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.
No CAPEC attack patterns related to this CWE.