Skip to content

@better-auth/oauth-provider's OAuth authorization-code grant allows concurrent redemption when two token requests race the find-then-delete primitive

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 31, 2026 in better-auth/better-auth • Updated Jul 20, 2026

Package

npm @better-auth/oauth-provider (npm)

Affected versions

>= 1.6.0, < 1.6.11

Patched versions

1.6.11
npm better-auth (npm)
< 1.6.11
1.6.11

Description

Am I affected?

Users are affected if all of the following are true:

  • Their project depends on @better-auth/oauth-provider at a version >= 1.6.0, < 1.6.11, or uses the embedded plugin in better-auth >= 1.4.8-beta.7, < 1.6.0, or enables the legacy oidc-provider or mcp plugins from better-auth/plugins.
  • Their application exposes /api/auth/oauth2/token (or the legacy plugins' /oauth2/token and /mcp/token) as a token endpoint to OAuth/OIDC clients, including internal MCP clients (Claude Desktop, custom MCP tool callers, AI agents).
  • Their application has not implemented an external mitigation: a load-balancer-level idempotency cache keyed by code, a database trigger that rejects duplicate token issuance for the same authorization code, or a custom adapter override that performs an atomic compare-and-delete.

Fix:

  1. Upgrade to @better-auth/oauth-provider@1.6.11 or later. If developers use the legacy plugin paths from better-auth/plugins, upgrade better-auth to 1.6.11 or later.
  2. If developers cannot upgrade, see workarounds below.

Summary

The OAuth provider's POST /oauth2/token endpoint, on the authorization_code grant, redeems a single-use authorization code through a non-atomic find-then-delete sequence. Two concurrent requests with the same code value both pass the read step before either delete completes, then both proceed to PKCE verification and createUserTokens. Each surviving request mints a fresh access token, refresh token, and id token. RFC 6749 §4.1.2 requires authorization codes to be single-use; this primitive does not enforce that under concurrency.

Details

The same architectural primitive (find a single-use verification row, then delete it, then trust the row to authorize) is used in 20 other call sites across the codebase. The deletion primitive returns Promise<void>, discarding the row count surfaced by adapter.deleteMany, so no call site can detect "another caller already claimed this row". The fix lands at the primitive layer rather than at any individual call site.

The fix introduces a claimVerificationByIdentifier primitive at the internal-adapter layer that performs an atomic claim-and-return, replaces the find-then-delete pair at this call site, and migrates the highest-impact variant sites in the same release.

Patches

Fixed in @better-auth/oauth-provider@1.6.11 and better-auth@1.6.11 for the legacy oidc-provider and mcp plugin paths. All three token-exchange call sites now consume the verification row through internalAdapter.consumeVerificationValue, an atomic claim primitive that deletes the row and returns its prior value in one operation. The first request to arrive takes the row and mints tokens; concurrent racers observe an empty result and return invalid_grant.

Error-code consistency is also tightened on the @better-auth/oauth-provider token endpoint: the malformed-verification-value branches previously returned a project-specific invalid_verification code, which is not part of RFC 6749 §5.2's response error set. Both branches now return invalid_grant so spec-compliant clients can branch on the standard code without a special case.

Workarounds

None of these close the bug fully without a code patch. Upgrading is the only good path.

  • Network-layer: deploy an authorization-server-aware reverse proxy (Envoy, NGINX with Lua, custom Cloudflare Worker) that holds an in-flight registry keyed by the code parameter and serializes concurrent requests for the same code. Fragile under multi-instance deployments unless the registry is shared (Redis-backed).
  • Database-layer: add a SQL or Mongo uniqueness constraint that prevents two oauthAccessToken rows from being created with the same upstream code reference. Adapter-specific and not always feasible since the schema does not currently store the source code.
  • Application-layer: wrap deleteVerificationByIdentifier with a custom hook that uses adapter.deleteMany and surfaces the count, then injects an invalid_grant rejection when the count is zero. Requires forking the internal adapter.

Impact

  • Multiple independent token sets from a single authorization: forked access tokens, refresh tokens, and id tokens issued from the same code, all valid for the original user's authorization scope.
  • Detection bypass: standard OAuth single-use enforcement does not fire for the second redemption when both requests interleave through the read step.
  • Legacy-plugin reach: oidc-provider and mcp plugins share the primitive on the same surface, so deployments using them inherit the same impact.

Credit

Reported by @chdanielmueller.

Resources

References

@gustavovalverde gustavovalverde published to better-auth/better-auth May 31, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 7, 2026
Reviewed Jul 7, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 15, 2026
Last updated Jul 20, 2026

Severity

High

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(14th percentile)

Weaknesses

Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay

A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes). Learn more on MITRE.

Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. Learn more on MITRE.

Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition

The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-53518

GHSA ID

GHSA-7w99-5wm4-3g79

Source code

Credits

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