CVE-2026-114614VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

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

Affects otermSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114614· Low 2.6

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.6 Low : upgrade to 0.24.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 07:30 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 0.24.0

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

Upgrade oterm to 0.24.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewoterm`pkg:brew/oterm`Other threats	Affected >=0.14.0 <0.24.0	Fixed in 0.24.0

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

Description

### Summary `authlib.common.security.is_secure_transport()` is used throughout Authlib to enforce the OAuth 2.0 / OIDC requirement that endpoint and redirect URIs use TLS, with an RFC 8252 §7.3 exemption for loopback `http://` URIs. The check is implemented as a textual `str.startswith` prefix match, so a URL such as `http://localhost:80@evil.example/cb` — whose actual host is `evil.example` and whose scheme is plain `http` — is accepted as "secure". An attacker who can supply a URL to any of the sinks that rely on this check (OIDC RP-Initiated Logout dynamic client registration, RFC 8414 authorization-server metadata validation, error-redirect rendering) can smuggle a cleartext non-loopback URL past the TLS-required guard. This is a defense-in-depth / spec-conformance failure; severity is low. ### Details **Affected versions:** `authlib >= 0.13, <= 1.7.2` (all releases containing the loopback prefix exemption; verified against 1.7.2, the current latest) The vulnerable function, from `authlib/common/security.py` at v1.7.2: ```python 13 def is_secure_transport(uri): 14 """Check if the uri is over ssl.""" 15 if os.getenv("AUTHLIB_INSECURE_TRANSPORT"): 16 return True 17 18 uri = uri.lower() 19 return uri.startswith( 20 ("https://", "http://localhost:", "http://127.0.0.1:", "http://[::1]:") 21 ) ``` Per RFC 3986 §3.2 the authority component of a URI is `[ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ]`. The URL `http://localhost:80@evil.example/cb` therefore has userinfo `localhost:80` and host `evil.example`. Because the check is a raw prefix match against the full URL string, the `http://localhost:` prefix matches the userinfo portion and the function returns `True` even though the scheme is `http` and the host is an arbitrary external name. The trailing `:` in each allow-list entry — presumably intended to force a `host:port` shape and reject `http://localhost.evil.com` — is also satisfied by the `user:password` separator inside userinfo, so `http://localhost:@evil.example/` matches too. The same construction works against all three loopback prefixes (`http://127.0.0.1:...@evil.example/`, `http://[::1]:...@evil.example/`). `is_secure_transport()` is consumed at the following locations in v1.7.2, none of which independently reject URLs containing a userinfo component: - `authlib/oidc/rpinitiated/registration.py:50-57` — validation of `post_logout_redirect_uris` during OIDC dynamic client registration for public clients (`token_endpoint_auth_method == "none"`). The preceding `is_valid_url()` check (`authlib/common/urls.py:142-146`) only requires `parsed.scheme and parsed.hostname` and does **not** reject userinfo, so the crafted URL passes both guards. A public client can therefore register `http://localhost:80@attacker.example/cb` as a post-logout redirect target; the OpenID Provider will later 302 the end-user's browser to that cleartext non-loopback URL (carrying `state`). - `authlib/oauth2/rfc8414/models.py:61,75,100,115,123,248,284` — validation of `issuer`, `authorization_endpoint`, `token_endpoint`, `jwks_uri`, `registration_endpoint`, `revocation_endpoint`, `introspection_endpoint` in Authorization Server Metadata / OIDC Discovery documents. A relying party using `AuthorizationServerMetadata.validate()` would accept endpoint values of this form as satisfying the "MUST use https" requirement when they do not. - `authlib/oidc/rpinitiated/discovery.py:12` — validation of `end_session_endpoint` in provider metadata. - `authlib/oauth2/rfc6749/errors.py:64` and `authlib/oauth1/rfc5849/errors.py:33` — governs how `redirect_uri` is rendered in error bodies (cosmetic). The `http://localhost:` prefix was introduced in commit `0225c86b` (first released in v0.13); `http://127.0.0.1:` and `http://[::1]:` were added later in the 1.6.x line. All variants share the same prefix-match weakness. ### PoC Against the current latest release (1.7.2): ```sh python3 -m venv venv ./venv/bin/pip install 'authlib==1.7.2' ./venv/bin/python poc.py ``` `poc.py`: ```python #!/usr/bin/env python3 """ is_secure_transport() must return True only for https:// URLs, or http:// URLs whose host is a loopback address (localhost / 127.0.0.1 / ::1). Bypass: http://localhost:80@evil.example/cb has host 'evil.example' (userinfo = 'localhost:80') per RFC 3986, but matches the prefix 'http://localhost:' and is therefore accepted as secure. """ from urllib.parse import urlparse from authlib.common.security import is_secure_transport cases = [ "http://localhost:80@evil.example/cb", "http://127.0.0.1:80@evil.example/cb", "http://localhost:@evil.example/cb", ] vulnerable = False for url in cases: parsed = urlparse(url) ok = is_secure_transport(url) print(f"is_secure_transport({url!r}) = {ok} " f"[actual host = {parsed.hostname!r}, scheme = {parsed.scheme!r}]") if ok and parsed.hostname not in ("localhost", "127.0.0.1", "::1") and parsed.scheme != "https": vulner

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…