VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026Updated 2 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-49272: OAuthLib · Bearer token can be retrieved as long as client knows a valid client ID for device workflow

Affects snapcraftSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.5 High.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 04:33 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.5High

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

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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 28 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 2 Nov 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
Homebrewsnapcraft`pkg:brew/snapcraft`Other threats	Affected >=8.9.5	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, it is recommended to implement additional validation of the device_code parameter on the token endpoint to ensure it is present and valid before issuing tokens. Review client authentication logic, especially for public clients, to prevent unauthorized token issuance. Monitor official OAuthLib repositories and advisories for updates addressing this vulnerability.

Description

OAuthLib's implementation of the OAuth 2.0 device authorization grant (RFC 8628) contains a vulnerability where the token endpoint does not validate the device_code parameter. This allows an attacker who knows a valid client ID enabled for the device workflow to obtain a bearer token without a valid device_code. The issue arises because DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request fails to verify the device_code, unlike other grant types that perform such validation. This flaw affects OAuthLib versions starting from 8.9.5. The vulnerability has a high severity with a CVSS score of 8.5.

Impact

An attacker with knowledge of a valid client ID enabled for the device workflow can obtain a bearer token without possessing a valid device_code. This compromises the integrity of the OAuth 2.0 device authorization grant flow, potentially allowing unauthorized access to protected resources. The impact includes partial confidentiality loss (bearer token disclosure) and high integrity impact (unauthorized token issuance). Availability is not affected. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

Summary

The OAuthLib library's DeviceCodeGrant implementation does not validate the device_code parameter in token requests as required by RFC 8628. Specifically, the method DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request lacks checks to confirm that the device_code is present and valid. This allows an attacker who knows a valid client ID configured for the device workflow to request a bearer token using any arbitrary device_code value. The vulnerability is exacerbated by improper handling of public clients in the authentication process. A proof-of-concept demonstrates that a public client can obtain a bearer token without a valid device_code by exploiting this validation omission. This affects OAuthLib versions >=8.9.5 and poses a risk to any service using OAuthLib's device workflow implementation without additional validation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2026, 04:33 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats