CVE-2026-108167VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

The auth0-ai-python FGA retriever does not distinguish between authorization checks under different users, relations

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-108167· High

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 1.0.2 soon.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 23:07 UTC

Severity

High

Rated High by Threat Radar's AI analysis · CVSS not yet scored by NVD

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.2, 1.0.3

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Nov 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 10 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.

ghsa-224p-7467-99w9

What to do

Upgrade auth0-ai-langchain to 1.0.2; auth0-ai-llamaindex to 1.0.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Auth0auth0-ai-langchain	Affected <1.0.2	Fixed in 1.0.2
Auth0auth0-ai-llamaindex	Affected <1.0.3	Fixed in 1.0.3
PyPIauth0-ai-langchain`pkg:pypi/auth0-ai-langchain`Other threats	Affected <1.0.2	Fixed in 1.0.2
PyPIauth0-ai-llamaindex`pkg:pypi/auth0-ai-llamaindex`Other threats	Affected <1.0.3	Fixed in 1.0.3

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 provided, users should be cautious about relying on the auth0-ai-python FGA retriever for sensitive data filtering and consider additional manual or alternative authorization checks.

Description

The auth0-ai-python Fine-Grained Authorization (FGA) retriever fails to differentiate authorization checks across different users, relations, or conditions when filtering documents during retrieval-augmented generation. This flaw causes documents that should be denied by Auth0 FGA policies to be included in the model's context and potentially used in generated responses.

Impact

Unauthorized documents that should be denied by Auth0 FGA policies may be included in the model's context and used in generated responses, potentially exposing sensitive or restricted information to unauthorized users.

Summary

The vulnerability in the auth0-ai-python FGA retriever arises from its inability to properly distinguish authorization contexts for different users, relations, or conditions during document filtering. As a result, documents that are supposed to be restricted by Auth0's Fine-Grained Authorization policies may be erroneously included in the retrieval process, leading to unauthorized data exposure within the generated output of the model.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 10 Nov 2026, 23:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats