VulnerabilityPublished 7 Jul 2026Updated 20 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-53517: Better Auth · OAuth refresh-token rotation forks the token family on concurrent redemption

Affects @better-auth/oauth-providerSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 1.6.11 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.11, 1.6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 7 Jul 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 @better-auth/oauth-provider to 1.6.11; better-auth to 1.6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npm@better-auth/oauth-provider	Affected >=1.6.0 <1.6.11	Fixed in 1.6.11
npmbetter-auth	Affected >=1.4.8-beta.7 <1.6.0	Fixed in 1.6.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to @better-auth/oauth-provider version 1.6.11 or later, which includes an atomic compare-and-swap fix for refresh token rotation and adds a unique constraint on refresh tokens. If upgrading is not immediately possible, no full workaround closes the vulnerability; developers should avoid concurrent refresh token redemption scenarios (e.g., avoid sharing refresh tokens across browser tabs without mutexes or retrying refresh token requests concurrently). The patch is available and should be applied promptly.

Description

A vulnerability in @better-auth/oauth-provider versions >=1.6.0 and <1.6.11 allows concurrent refresh token redemption to fork the refresh token family. This occurs because the refresh token rotation process is not atomic, enabling two concurrent requests using the same refresh token to both succeed and mint new tokens. This breaks the intended single-use refresh token rotation and can allow indefinite access token renewal until expiration or revocation. The issue is fixed in version 1.6.11 by implementing an atomic compare-and-swap operation during token rotation and adding a unique constraint on refresh tokens.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker or client to redeem the same refresh token concurrently, resulting in multiple valid refresh tokens (a forked token family). This undermines the security guarantees of refresh token rotation, potentially allowing indefinite access token renewal with a stolen or reused refresh token until it expires or is revoked. This increases the risk of unauthorized long-term access to protected resources. However, the issue only affects applications using the affected versions and requesting the 'offline_access' scope to mint refresh tokens.

Summary

The OAuth provider's refresh token rotation endpoint performs a non-atomic sequence of read, validate, revoke, and mint operations on the refresh token record. When two concurrent requests redeem the same refresh token, both pass the revocation check before either revokes the token, resulting in both minting new refresh tokens and thus forking the token family. The root cause is that the update predicate does not include a 'revoked IS NULL' condition, allowing concurrent updates to succeed without error. The schema also lacks a unique constraint on refresh tokens, permitting concurrent token creation without collision. The fix in @better-auth/oauth-provider@1.6.11 adds an atomic compare-and-swap update with a rowcount check to ensure only one request succeeds, returning 'invalid_grant' to the loser. This prevents token family forks and enforces proper refresh token rotation per RFC 9700 §4.14. The patch also includes a unique constraint on the refresh token field and compatibility fixes for the in-memory adapter. No full strict family invalidation is implemented yet but planned for a future release.

CWE-294Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
Architecture and Design
Utilize some sequence or time stamping functionality along with a checksum which takes this into account in order to ensure that messages can be parsed only once.
Architecture and Design
Since any attacker who can listen to traffic can see sequence numbers, it is necessary to sign messages with some kind of cryptography to ensure that sequence numbers are not simply doctored along with content.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Remote Services with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Windows Admin Shares with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization (Race Condition) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-367Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
Implementation
The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
Implementation
When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
Architecture and Design
Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.3 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Race Conditions via Symbolic Links (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-613DEPRECATED: Insufficient Session Expiration (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
This entry has been deprecated because it was insufficiently clear. Consider CWE-1462 and its descendants.
MITRE does not allow mapping vulnerabilities to this entry; it groups weaknesses rather than naming one.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.6 (opens in a new tab)
V3.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2026, 13:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-294, CWE-362, CWE-367 +1

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats