CVE-2026-32245

The OIDC token endpoint does not verify that the client exchanging an authorization code is the same client the code was issued to. A malicious OIDC client operator can exchange another client's authorization code using their own client credentials, obtaining tokens for users who never authorized their application. This violates RFC 6749 Section 4.1.3.

Details

When an authorization code is created, StoreCode at internal/service/oidc_service.go:305-322 correctly stores the ClientID alongside the code hash in the database (line 316).

During token exchange at internal/controller/oidc_controller.go:267-309, the handler retrieves the code entry at line 268 and validates the redirect_uri at line 291, but never compares entry.ClientID against the requesting client's ID (creds.ClientID). The code proceeds directly to GenerateAccessToken at line 299.

The developers clearly intended this check to exist, the refresh token flow at internal/service/oidc_service.go:508-510 has the exact guard: if entry.ClientID != reqClientId { return TokenResponse{}, ErrInvalidClient }. It was simply omitted from the authorization code grant.

The entry.ClientID field is stored in the database but never read during authorization code exchange.

PoC

Prerequisites: a tinyauth instance with two OIDC clients configured (Client A and Client B). Both clients must have at least one overlapping redirect URI, or the attacker must be able to intercept the authorization code from Client A's redirect (via referrer leak, browser history, log access, etc.).

Step 1, Log in as a normal user:

curl -c cookies.txt -X POST http://localhost:3000/api/user/login \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"username":"admin","password":"admin123"}'

Step 2, Authorize with Client A:

curl -b cookies.txt -X POST http://localhost:3000/api/oidc/authorize \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"client_id":"client-a-id","redirect_uri":"http://localhost:8080/callback","response_type":"code","scope":"openid","state":"test"}'

Extract the code parameter from the redirect_uri in the response.

Step 3, Exchange Client A's code using Client B's credentials:

curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/api/oidc/token \
  -u "client-b-id:client-b-secret" \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code&code=<CODE_FROM_STEP_2>&redirect_uri=http://localhost:8080/callback"

The server returns a valid access_token, id_token, and refresh_token. Client B has obtained tokens for a user who only authorized Client A.

A malicious OIDC relying party operator who can intercept or observe an authorization code issued to a different client can exchange it for tokens under their own client identity. This enables user impersonation across OIDC clients on the same tinyauth instance. The attack requires a multi-client deployment and a way to obtain the victim client's authorization code (which is passed as a URL query parameter and can leak through referrer headers, browser history, or server logs). Single-client deployments are not affected.

The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions. Typical impact: unauthorized data access or execution of privileged operations.

CVE-2026-32245 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and user interaction required. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (1.0.1-20260311144920-9eb2d33064b7); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

1. What is CVE-2026-32245? CVE-2026-32245 is a medium-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth (go), affecting versions < 1.0.1-20260311144920-9eb2d33064b7. It is fixed in 1.0.1-20260311144920-9eb2d33064b7. The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions.
2. How severe is CVE-2026-32245? CVE-2026-32245 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
3. Which versions of github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth are affected by CVE-2026-32245? github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth (go) versions < 1.0.1-20260311144920-9eb2d33064b7 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-32245? Yes. CVE-2026-32245 is fixed in 1.0.1-20260311144920-9eb2d33064b7. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is CVE-2026-32245 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-32245 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-32245 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
7. How do I fix CVE-2026-32245? Upgrade github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth to 1.0.1-20260311144920-9eb2d33064b7 or later.