CVE-2026-114614VulnerabilityPublished 22 Oct 2026Updated 30 Oct 2026

From 0.13 until 1.8.0, authlib.common.security.is_secure_transport() uses a textual prefix comparison for loopback

Affects authlibSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114614· Low 2.6

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.6 Low : upgrade to 1.8.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.8.0

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 30 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 authlib to 1.8.0.

Patches and advisories

github.com/authlib/authlib/commit/95ad1f90acf0c7b9cf2a8f25e6eb3f1135b8dc70 (opens in a new tab)

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIauthlib`pkg:pypi/authlib`Other threats	Affected 0.13 – 1.7.2 >=0.13 <1.8.0 46 affected builds	Fixed in 1.8.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Authlib to version 1.8.0 or later, where this issue is fixed. The vendor has released an official patch addressing the flawed is_secure_transport() implementation. No additional mitigations are indicated as the vulnerability is resolved by this update.

Description

Authlib versions from 0.13 up to but not including 1.8.0 contain a vulnerability in the is_secure_transport() function, which uses a textual prefix comparison for loopback HTTP exemptions. This flaw allows an attacker who can supply a URL to certain OIDC operations to bypass the TLS requirement and cause cleartext redirection or acceptance of cleartext endpoints. The vulnerability does not bypass redirect URI exact matching and does not enable token forgery or user authentication bypass. The issue is fixed in version 1.8.0.

Impact

An attacker who can supply URLs to certain OIDC operations may bypass TLS enforcement, causing cleartext redirection or acceptance of cleartext endpoints. This could potentially expose sensitive information in transit. However, the vulnerability does not allow bypassing redirect URI exact matching, token forgery, or user authentication bypass. The overall confidentiality impact is limited, and no integrity or availability impacts are reported.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…