CVE-2026-54136VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jul 2026

windmill-api · Windmill: Resource-scoped API tokens can read script contents outside their allowed path via scripts/list_search

Affects windmill-apiSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-54136· Medium 5.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium : upgrade to 1.715.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.715.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 windmill-api to 1.715.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
crates.iowindmill-api	Affected <1.715.0	Fixed in 1.715.0

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

Description

### Summary A resource-scoped API token can read script contents outside its allowed path scope via `GET /api/w/{workspace}/scripts/list_search`. This appears to be a remaining variant of the scoped-token authorization class previously addressed for other endpoints. The route-level scope middleware validates the token domain/action, but does not enforce the resource/path segment of a scope. `scripts/list_search` then returns script `path` and `content` for scripts in the workspace without applying per-row path filtering against the token scopes. ### Affected endpoint `GET /api/w/{workspace}/scripts/list_search` ### Affected versions Confirmed in the current public repository code and believed to affect the latest published release at the time of review: `<= 1.714.1` Patched version: unknown. ### Details Windmill supports scoped API tokens with scopes in the format: `{domain}:{action}[:{resource}]` The parser supports resource-scoped values such as: `scripts:read:f/allowed/*` and the codebase contains helpers for resource matching, including wildcard matching. However, the route-level scope check used for requests with scoped API tokens only validates the route domain and action. It does not compare the token's resource/path restriction against the requested route or against the rows returned by list endpoints. For `scripts/list_search`, the handler returns `path` and `content` for scripts in the workspace: `SELECT path, content from script WHERE workspace_id = $1 AND archived = false LIMIT $2` There is no additional `check_scopes(...)` call in the handler and no per-row filtering based on the token's resource/path scope. As a result, a token intended to read only scripts under one path prefix may be able to read script contents from unrelated paths in the same workspace. ### Source-level reproduction 1. Create or use a workspace containing at least two scripts: - `f/allowed/script_a` - `f/private/script_b` 2. Create a scoped API token intended to read only the allowed path: `scripts:read:f/allowed/*` 3. Use that token to call: `GET /api/w/{workspace}/scripts/list_search` 4. Expected behavior: The response should include only scripts matching the token's resource scope, e.g. only scripts under: `f/allowed/*` 5. Actual behavior from source review: The route-level scope check accepts the request as `scripts:read`, and the handler returns script `path` and `content` for scripts in the workspace without filtering the rows by the token's resource scope. This can expose script source code from paths outside the token's intended scope. ### Impact A user or integration holding a path-restricted `scripts:read:{resource}` token may be able to read script contents from unrelated scripts in the same workspace. Depending on how scripts are used, this may disclose: - internal automation logic, - integration details, - business logic, - inline configuration, - accidentally hardcoded secrets or credentials. This does not require admin privileges. It requires possession of a valid scoped API token for the workspace. ### Related context This appears related to the broader class of issues where route-level token scope enforcement validates domain/action but not the resource/path portion of the scope. Similar scoped-token issues appear to have been fixed for other endpoints, such as resources/variables listing and job preview/run paths, but I did not find an equivalent fix for `scripts/list_search`. ### Suggested fix Apply resource/path scope enforcement to `scripts/list_search`. Possible approaches: 1. Add explicit handler-level authorization similar to per-resource endpoints. 2. Filter returned rows so that a scoped token only receives scripts whose `path` is included by at least one `scripts:read:{resource}` scope. 3. Add regression tests for: - `scripts:read:f/allowed/*` cannot see `f/private/script_b`, - broad `scripts:read` still sees all accessible scripts, - unscoped tokens preserve current behavior, - filter-tag-only tokens preserve current compatibility behavior. A more defensive long-term fix would be to make route-level scope enforcement aware of resource/path restrictions where the route contains a concrete resource path, while list endpoints should apply per-row filtering.

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

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats