CVE-2026-114614VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

omnara · Authlib: is_secure_transport() loopback exemption can be bypassed with a userinfo component, allowing cleartext-HTTP

Affects omnaraSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114614· Low 2.6

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.6 Low · fixed in 1.7.2 : update omnara when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 08:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.6Low

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	2.6

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.7.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 22 Oct 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewomnara`pkg:brew/omnara`Other threats	Affected >=1.5.2	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Authlib versions after 1.7.2 that corrects the is_secure_transport() function to properly parse and validate the host component rather than relying on a prefix string match. Users should upgrade to a fixed version once released. Until then, avoid accepting untrusted URLs for OAuth 2.0 / OIDC redirect and endpoint parameters or implement additional validation to reject URLs containing userinfo components or that do not strictly match loopback hosts with TLS enforcement.

Description

Authlib versions from 0.13 through 1.7.2 contain a vulnerability in the is_secure_transport() function, which incorrectly treats certain HTTP URLs with userinfo components as secure loopback addresses. This flaw allows an attacker to bypass the TLS enforcement by crafting URLs like http://localhost:80@evil.example/cb, which appear to be loopback HTTP URLs but actually point to external hosts over cleartext HTTP. The vulnerability affects OAuth 2.0 / OIDC endpoint and redirect URI validations, potentially allowing cleartext non-loopback URLs to pass security checks.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass the TLS enforcement on OAuth 2.0 / OIDC endpoint and redirect URIs by supplying URLs with userinfo components that appear to be loopback HTTP URLs but actually point to external hosts over cleartext HTTP. This can lead to redirection of end-users to attacker-controlled HTTP endpoints during logout or metadata validation processes, potentially exposing sensitive parameters such as state tokens over insecure channels. The impact is considered low severity due to the defense-in-depth nature of the check and the requirement for attacker control over URL input.

Summary

The is_secure_transport() function in Authlib performs a textual prefix check to enforce TLS usage on OAuth 2.0 / OIDC URIs, with an exemption for loopback HTTP URLs per RFC 8252 §7.3. However, the check uses str.startswith on the full URL string, which can be bypassed by including a userinfo component in the URL. For example, the URL http://localhost:80@evil.example/cb has userinfo 'localhost:80' and host 'evil.example', but matches the 'http://localhost:' prefix, causing the function to incorrectly return True. This allows an attacker to supply malicious URLs to various Authlib components that rely on this check, including OIDC RP-Initiated Logout dynamic client registration and authorization server metadata validation, thereby circumventing the TLS requirement and enabling cleartext HTTP redirection to attacker-controlled domains. The issue affects all Authlib releases containing the loopback prefix exemption, verified up to version 1.7.2.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 08:47 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats