VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-41425: Authlib · Cross-site request forging when using cache

Affects mcpmSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 2.14.0_3 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.14.0_3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade mcpm to 2.14.0_3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewmcpm`pkg:brew/mcpm`Other threats	Affected >=2.1.0 <2.14.0_3	Fixed in 2.14.0_3

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Summary There is no CSRF protection on the cache feature on most integrations clients. ### Details In `authlib.integrations.starlette_client.OAuth`, no CSRF protection is set up when using the cache parameter. When _not_ using the cache parameter, the use of SessionMiddleware ties the client to the auth state, preventing CSRF attacks. With the cache, there is no such mechanism. Other integratons have the same issue, it's not just starlette. The state parameter is taken from the callback URL and the state is fetched from the cache without checking that it is the same client calling the redirect endpoint as was the one that initiated the auth flow. This issue is documented in RFC 6749 section 10.12: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-10.12 ### PoC - Set up a Starlette integration with a cache - The attacker starts the auth flow up until before the callback URL is followed. - The attacked sends the redirect URL to the victim - The victim now completes the authorisation ### Impact This impacts all users that use the cache to store auth state. All users will be vulnerable to CSRF attacks and may have an attacker's account tied to their own.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…