CVE-2026-114620VulnerabilityPublished 22 Oct 2026Updated 30 Oct 2026

Prior to 1.9.0, Authlib's RFC 9101 JWTAuthenticationRequest passes the unauthenticated, client-controlled request_uri

Affects authlibSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114620· Medium 5.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 1.9.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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	5.4

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.9.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 1.9.0.

Patches and advisories

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIauthlib`pkg:pypi/authlib`Other threats	Affected 1.6.0 – 1.8.0 >=1.6.0 <1.9.0 17 affected builds	Fixed in 1.9.0

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 1.9.0 or later where this issue is fixed. If upgrading is not immediately possible, ensure that any custom implementation of the get_request_object() hook applies strict allowlists, destination controls, and retrieval limits to prevent unauthorized outbound requests. No other mitigation is indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

Authlib versions prior to 1.9.0 contain a vulnerability in the RFC 9101 JWTAuthenticationRequest implementation where the unauthenticated, client-controlled request_uri parameter is passed to a hook before destination validation. This can allow a remote attacker with a valid public client ID to induce the authorization server to fetch unintended internal or link-local URLs if the integrator's hook performs unrestricted outbound fetches. The issue is fixed in version 1.9.0.

Impact

An attacker with knowledge of a valid public client identifier can exploit this vulnerability to cause the authorization server to make HTTP requests to internal, link-local, or otherwise unintended destinations. This can lead to information disclosure through error messages or timing analysis. The impact is limited to deployments that implement the get_request_object() hook as an unrestricted outbound fetch without proper destination controls. There is no indication of remote code execution or denial of service. The CVSS score is 5.4 (medium severity) reflecting limited confidentiality and integrity impact without privileges or user interaction.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…