Adds an IFRAME_CSP environment variable that injects a Content-Security-Policy
<meta> tag into all srcdoc iframes rendering untrusted content:
- Artifacts (LLM-generated HTML previews)
- FullHeightIframe (tool/embed output)
- FilePreview (user-uploaded HTML files)
- CitationModal (RAG document HTML)
Shared utility in src/lib/utils/csp.ts handles injection with HTML-safe
attribute escaping. URL-based iframes (src=) are correctly excluded.
Env-var only — no PersistentConfig, no admin UI, no DB. Set once at deploy
time, requires restart. Empty string (default) means no CSP restriction.
* fix: prevent mass-assignment user_id spoofing in POST /api/v1/evaluations/feedback
Two independent gaps in backend/open_webui/models/feedbacks.py let an
authenticated caller forge the `user_id` (and `id`, `version`) on a new
feedback record submitted to POST /api/v1/evaluations/feedback:
1. `FeedbackForm` declared `model_config = ConfigDict(extra='allow')`,
so Pydantic preserved any extra fields supplied in the request body —
including `user_id`, `id`, `version`. The form is the public input
boundary for the endpoint and should not accept unknown fields.
2. In `insert_new_feedback`, the dict literal placed
`**form_data.model_dump()` AFTER `'id': id`, `'user_id': user_id`,
`'version': 0`. Python dict-literal duplicate-key resolution is
last-wins, so any of those fields present in `form_data` overwrote
the server-derived values.
Combined effect: a regular user could POST a feedback record with an
arbitrary `user_id`, attributing the rating to any other user. The Elo
leaderboard at backend/open_webui/routers/evaluations.py computes model
rankings from these records, and the admin export
(GET /api/v1/evaluations/feedbacks/export) and admin list
(GET /api/v1/evaluations/feedbacks/all) display the spoofed attribution.
Two fixes, defense-in-depth:
- FeedbackForm: switch `extra='allow'` to `extra='ignore'` so Pydantic
drops unknown fields at parse time. Sub-models (RatingData / MetaData /
SnapshotData) intentionally keep `extra='allow'` because their contents
are deliberately schema-flexible — the spoofing surface was the form,
not the sub-payloads.
- insert_new_feedback: spread `form_data.model_dump()` first, then
overlay server-controlled fields (`id`, `user_id`, `version`,
`created_at`, `updated_at`) so the explicit keys win on duplicate-key
resolution regardless of what reaches the function. Matches the secure
pattern already used in backend/open_webui/models/functions.py:120.
Reported by yantongggg in GHSA-rjmp-vjf2-qf4g. Same root-cause class as
the prior published GHSA-hr43-rjmr-7wmm (folder mass-assignment, fixed
in v0.9.0); that fix did not generalize across the codebase, this fix
closes the feedback variant.
Co-authored-by: yantongggg <yantongggg@users.noreply.github.com>
* chore: trim comments
---------
Co-authored-by: yantongggg <yantongggg@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: prevent redirect-based SSRF in get_image_base64_from_url
Cohort follow-up to PR #24491. That PR patched three call sites
(SafeWebBaseLoader._scrape, get_content_from_url, load_url_image) to
pass allow_redirects=False on the underlying HTTP client; this fourth
call site in utils/files.py was missed.
get_image_base64_from_url() is invoked from convert_url_images_to_base64
in utils/middleware.py on every /api/chat/completions request whose
message content includes an image_url part. validate_url() is called on
the originally-submitted URL only; the aiohttp session.get() call had
no allow_redirects argument and the shared session pool does not
override the aiohttp default (allow_redirects=True). An authenticated
user sending a chat message with image_url pointing at an attacker host
that 302-redirects to 169.254.169.254 / 127.0.0.1 / RFC1918 reached the
internal target. This is the most reachable variant in the redirect
cluster: no special endpoint, no admin permission, no feature flag.
Apply the same one-line fix as the other three call sites: pass
allow_redirects=AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS (defaults to False).
Reported by nayakchinmohan in GHSA-88jq-grjp-jx6f; consolidated under
GHSA-rh5x-h6pp-cjj6.
Co-authored-by: nayakchinmohan <nayakchinmohan@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: enforce collection write access on process_file endpoint
Cohort follow-up to ba83613ff. That commit added _validate_collection_access
to process_text and process_web (the user-supplied collection_name path)
but missed process_file in the same router.
process_file accepts a user-supplied collection_name and writes the file's
embedded content into that collection via save_docs_to_vector_db. The
file_id is gated by file ownership (line 1562) but collection_name was
unchecked, so an authenticated user could append content from a file they
own into another user's knowledge-base collection by passing the victim's
KB UUID as collection_name. Identical pattern to the process_text and
process_web gaps that ba83613ff closed.
Apply the same one-line gate as the sibling endpoints: when
collection_name is user-supplied (not the default file-{file.id} fallback),
require write access via _validate_collection_access. The shared validator
delegates to filter_accessible_collections, which already correctly
handles file-* prefixes (via has_access_to_file) and KB UUIDs
(via Knowledges.check_access_by_user_id) — admins bypass.
Reported by tenbbughunters (Tenable) in GHSA-4g37-7p2c-38r9 (the
comprehensive write-path filing covering process_text / process_file /
process_web / process_youtube and the _validate_collection_access UUID
root cause), and independently re-identified for the missed process_file
call site by kodareef5 in GHSA-4m74-3cmc-293g.
Co-authored-by: tenbbughunters <tenbbughunters@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: kodareef5 <kodareef5@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: enforce collection write access on process_files_batch endpoint
Cohort follow-up to ba83613ff and the prior process_file fix on this
branch. process_files_batch (line 2604) is the third write endpoint in
the same router that accepts a user-supplied collection_name; it was
covered in the same Tenable filing as process_file and was missed by
the same cohort fix. The endpoint validates per-file ownership at line
2642 but does not check whether the caller has write access to the
target collection_name before save_docs_to_vector_db writes into it
at line 2683-2690 with add=True.
Apply the same one-line gate as the sibling endpoints. Validate only
when collection_name is user-supplied (truthy) so the existing fall
through behavior for the None case is unchanged.
Same Tenable / kodareef5 cohort as the previous commit.
Co-authored-by: tenbbughunters <tenbbughunters@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: kodareef5 <kodareef5@users.noreply.github.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: nayakchinmohan <nayakchinmohan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: tenbbughunters <tenbbughunters@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: kodareef5 <kodareef5@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: gate tool content updates behind workspace.tools to match create endpoint
`update_tools_by_id` (routers/tools.py:452) authorizes a caller as long as
they are the tool's owner, hold a `write` access grant on the tool, or are
an admin. This means a verified user who has been given a write grant on
a tool — typically as part of a metadata-collaboration workflow (edit
description, adjust valves, manage access grants) — can also overwrite
the tool's Python source. Because `load_tool_module_by_id` further down
calls `exec(content, module.__dict__)` at module-import time, anything
the new content puts outside the `class Tools:` body executes immediately
on the server with the worker's privileges (root in the default Docker
deployment).
The `create_new_tools` endpoint already requires
`workspace.tools` (or `workspace.tools_import`) precisely because creating
a tool means submitting executable code. The update endpoint did not
mirror that check, producing an asymmetric authorization surface in which
a write-grantee with no workspace permission can still reach the same
exec sink as a workspace.tools-trusted creator. SECURITY.md frames
`workspace.tools` as the trust signal an admin uses to delegate
code-execution capability; the previous behavior let that signal be
bypassed by a per-resource share.
Fix: after the existing ownership / write-grant / admin gate, add a
content-change check. If `form_data.content != tools.content`, require
`workspace.tools` or `workspace.tools_import` (or admin role). Metadata
edits — `name`, `description`, valves config, access grants — continue
to flow through the existing gate, so the legitimate share-for-
collaboration workflow is unaffected.
Reported by KadirArslan in GHSA-p4fx-23fq-jfg6 with a working three-user
PoC (Alice trusted with workspace.tools creates a tool and shares write
to Bob; Bob updates content and the new code runs as root inside the
container, with Burp Collaborator confirming outbound exfiltration).
Co-authored-by: KadirArslan <KadirArslan@users.noreply.github.com>
* chore: trim comment
---------
Co-authored-by: KadirArslan <KadirArslan@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: enforce message ownership in group/DM channel update + delete endpoints
`update_message_by_id` (channels.py:1348) and `delete_message_by_id`
(channels.py:1550) branch on `channel.type`. The `else` branch (standard
channels) correctly enforces `message.user_id != user.id` ownership before
mutating, but the `if channel.type in ['group', 'dm']` branch only checked
`is_user_channel_member` — channel membership alone, with no message
ownership verification.
Effect on group/DM channels: any verified member of the conversation could:
- overwrite another member's message content while the server preserved
`user_id=victim`, producing tampered content that renders to other
members as the original author's authentic post (integrity + authenticity);
- silently delete another member's messages, removing them from
conversation history without trace (integrity).
Reproduced end-to-end against v0.9.4 with three users (attacker, victim,
viewer) sharing a group channel: attacker overwrites victim's message and
deletes another, viewer reads the tampered content as victim-authored.
Two patches, identical shape, mirror the `else` branch's existing
ownership semantics:
- `update_message_by_id` group/DM branch: add
`if user.role != 'admin' and message.user_id != user.id: raise 403`
immediately after the `is_user_channel_member` check.
- `delete_message_by_id` group/DM branch: same.
The standard-channel branch is unchanged (it already enforced ownership).
Admins remain able to moderate any message, matching the existing semantic
in the standard-channel branch.
Reports consolidated under GHSA-wwhq-cx22-f7vv (earliest live filing of the
group/DM-specific variant). Same gap previously surfaced and partially
fixed under GHSA-jxwr-g6r6-j3fx (which addressed the standard-channel
branch only) — this completes the cohort.
* chore: trim comments
`pin_channel_message` (channels.py:1242) checked `permission='read'` on
the standard-channel branch before mutating `is_pinned` / `pinned_by` /
`pinned_at` via `Messages.update_is_pinned_by_id`. Pin/unpin is a write
operation; gating it on read access let any user with read-only channel
access pin or unpin any message in the channel, including admin posts.
One-character fix: change `permission='read'` to `permission='write'`.
Reported by kikayli in GHSA-5gc6-xhv4-2wg6.
Co-authored-by: kikayli <kikayli@users.noreply.github.com>
* chore: add validate_url() to get_image_data() for cohort consistency hardening
`get_image_data()` in `backend/open_webui/routers/images.py` fetches the
URL returned by the configured image generation API directly via
`session.get(data)` without first calling `validate_url()`. The sibling
`load_url_image()` in the same file (called from /images/edit) calls
`validate_url(data)` first — that gate was added under
GHSA-jgx9-jr5x-mvpv. The two functions handle structurally identical
input (an attacker-or-server-supplied URL string) and should enforce the
same SSRF gate as a matter of code hygiene.
In the current call graph, the URL passed to `get_image_data()` comes
from the admin-configured image generation API's response, so an
exploitable SSRF chain additionally requires admin-side trust delegation
(misconfigured/untrusted upstream image API, or a custom
OpenAI-compatible server that reflects user input into response URLs).
That makes the missing call a defense-in-depth gap rather than a
vulnerability per SECURITY.md Rule 9 — a position the GHSA-h7cc-wwjp-5xqh
advisory is being closed under. This change is hardening: it brings the
two image-fetch helpers into alignment so any future caller that begins
passing user-influenced URLs into `get_image_data()` is gated by the
same private-IP / loopback / metadata-IP filter the rest of the
codebase enforces.
Surface raised by brodmart in GHSA-h7cc-wwjp-5xqh.
Co-authored-by: brodmart <brodmart@users.noreply.github.com>
* chore: trim comment
---------
Co-authored-by: brodmart <brodmart@users.noreply.github.com>
GET /api/v1/models/model?id=<model_id> at routers/models.py:412
returned the full model.model_dump() to any caller with read access,
including the params dict that holds the admin-curated system prompt
and other behavior config. The user-facing /api/models endpoint
already strips this via utils/models.py:170,210 with the comment
"Remove params to avoid exposing sensitive info", and /api/v1/models/list
gates by write permission so non-curators don't see the model in their
workspace listing at all. The per-id endpoint missed the same gate, so
a user with read-only access (e.g. granted access to use the model in
chat) could open /workspace/models/edit?id=<not-mine> in the browser
and read the system prompt verbatim from the network response, even
though saving was correctly blocked.
Compute write_access once at the top of the handler so it can serve
both the response-shape decision and the response field. When the
caller lacks write access, replace params with an empty dict in the
serialised response. Owners, admins under BYPASS_ADMIN_ACCESS_CONTROL,
and explicit write-grant holders still get the full payload so the
workspace edit UI keeps working for users who legitimately curate the
model.
Read-permission users continue to receive everything else they need to
chat with the model — the chat path resolves prompt/params server-side
from the stored ModelModel and never echoes them back through this
endpoint.
Reported by destination-one in GHSA-h2cw-7qw9-56xr.
Co-authored-by: destination-one <destination-one@users.noreply.github.com>
urllib.parse.urlparse and requests/aiohttp disagree on how to split URLs
containing backslash, tab, CR, or LF in or around the netloc. urlparse
treats backslash as part of userinfo and uses what follows '@' as the
host; requests treats backslash as the start of the path and connects
to whatever precedes it. The same URL therefore passes the private-IP
filter (urlparse sees a public host) but reaches an internal target
(requests connects to e.g. 127.0.0.1). End result is an SSRF that the
existing IP block list cannot catch because it's evaluating the wrong
host.
PoC: http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1 — urlparse hostname is 1.1.1.1
(global, passes), requests reaches 127.0.0.1 (loopback).
Reject up front any URL containing one of the four documented parser-
confusing characters before either parser gets a chance to interpret
it. None of these characters is valid in an unencoded URL (\ should
always be %5C, whitespace should be %09 / %0A / %0D), so this is a
pure defensive rejection with no legitimate-input false positives.
Reported by Fushuling and RacerZ-fighting in GHSA-8w7q-q5jp-jvgx.
Co-authored-by: Fushuling <Fushuling@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: RacerZ-fighting <RacerZ-fighting@users.noreply.github.com>
New **pt-BR** translations for items introduced in the latest releases, plus a consistency/quality pass across existing strings (grammar, tone, capitalization, pluralization). Placeholders and hotkeys preserved. No logic changes.
