GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8

GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 is a high-severity improper authentication vulnerability in pyload-ng (pip), affecting versions >= 0.5.0b3.dev1, <= 0.5.0b3.dev101. No fixed version is listed yet.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

pyload-ng: getUserData/get_userdata exposed at Perms.ANY allow any authenticated account to brute-force the administrator password

Api.getUserData (legacy) and Api.get_userdata are declared with @permission(Perms.ANY) and are reachable at /api/getUserData and /api/get_userdata. Because Perms.ANY == 0 and pyLoad's permission check is a bitmask AND, that gate is a no-op: every authenticated account passes, including one holding zero permission bits.

Both methods are thin wrappers around check_auth(), which the maintainers deliberately restricted to administrators by omitting @permission (no entry in perm_map, so is_authorized() returns False for non-admins). The wrappers undo that protection.

An attacker holding the lowest-privileged account in the system therefore has a clean binary oracle on the administrator password, with no account lockout anywhere in the codebase, and with the 100 req/min rate limiter bypassable by rotating X-Forwarded-For.

Affected code

src/pyload/core/api/__init__.py:1446 and :1464

    #: Old API
    @permission(Perms.ANY)
    @get
    def getUserData(self, username: str, password: str) -> OldUserData:
        """
        similar to `check_auth` but returns UserData type.
        """
        user = self.check_auth(username, password)
        ...

    @permission(Perms.ANY)
    @get
    def get_userdata(self, username: str, password: str) -> UserData:
        user = self.check_auth(username, password)
        ...

Root cause

src/pyload/core/api/__init__.py:57

class Perms(IntFlag):
    ANY = 0  #: requires no permission, but login

src/pyload/core/api/__init__.py:108

def has_permission(user_perms: Perms, required_perms: Perms):
    return required_perms == (user_perms & required_perms)

For required_perms == 0 this evaluates to 0 == (user_perms & 0) → 0 == 0 → always True. The @permission(Perms.ANY) gate therefore admits every authenticated principal regardless of which permission bits they hold.

Contrast with the intended admin-only primitive, src/pyload/core/api/__init__.py:1396:

    @legacy("checkAuth")
    @get
    def check_auth(self, username: str, password: str) -> dict[str, Any]:

check_auth has no @permission; is_authorized() at api/__init__.py:1430 returns False for non-admins. The two wrappers carry Perms.ANY and restore access for everyone.

Because both wrappers also carry @get, they are placed in method_map and are directly routable via /api/<func>.

Amplifiers

1. No lockout. There is no failed-login counter, delay, or ban anywhere in the codebase. A failed guess costs the attacker only one PBKDF2 computation.

2. Rate limiting is bypassable. /api/* applies rate_limit(count=100, period=60) (src/pyload/webui/app/blueprints/api_blueprint.py:25), which buckets on a fully client-controlled header (src/pyload/webui/app/helpers.py:446):

client_ip = flask.request.headers.get("X-Forwarded-For", "").split(",")[0].strip() \
    or flask.request.remote_addr

Rotating X-Forwarded-For per request yields a fresh bucket each time. Notably, is_loopback_request() in the same file (helpers.py:288-294) explicitly treats the presence of X-Forwarded-For / X-Real-IP / Forwarded as untrustworthy, the same guard was evidently not applied inside rate_limit().

Proof of concept

Verified against 0.5.0b3, commit a5b008958.

Setup: stock instance with admin pyload, plus a non-admin user bob created with role=USER and permission=0.

Step 1, establish that bob is genuinely unprivileged:

GET /api/checkAuth?username=pyload&password=pyload   ->  401 {"error": "Access denied"}
GET /api/getAllUserData                              ->  401 {"error": "Access denied"}

Step 2, the flaw. Same user, same session, Perms.ANY gate:

GET /api/getUserData?username=pyload&password=WRONG
  -> 200 {"name": null, "email": null, "role": null, "permission": null, "template_name": null}

GET /api/getUserData?username=pyload&password=pyload
  -> 200 {"name": "pyload", "email": "", "role": 0, "permission": 0, "template_name": "default"}

role: 0 is Role.ADMIN. get_userdata behaves identically. This is a perfect yes/no oracle.

Step 3, measured brute force and recovery. Run as bob (permission = 0), admin password set to a 2-character value, X-Forwarded-For rotated on every request:

attempts         : 667
elapsed          : 39.7s   (16.8 guesses/sec)
429 rate-limits  : 0
account lockout  : NONE - same session authenticated throughout
RECOVERED SECRET : 'zq'   (true value 'zq')   match=True

Step 4, full takeover with the recovered secret:

POST /login as pyload/<recovered>       ->  HTTP 302  (authenticated as admin)
GET  /api/getAllUserData (admin-only)  ->  HTTP 200  (full user dump)

Measured throughput is 17-47 guesses/sec/thread. The only bound is PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA256 at 100,000 iterations in src/pyload/core/database/user_database.py:14, not any rate limit.

Suggested remediation

  • Remove @permission(Perms.ANY) from getUserData and get_userdata, or drop them entirely, they are legacy compatibility shims, and modern callers already use the admin-only check_auth.
  • Structurally: Perms.ANY = 0 makes has_permission() vacuous, so any method decorated @permission(Perms.ANY) silently becomes public to every logged-in user. Give ANY a real bit value, or handle it explicitly in has_permission() as "requires an authenticated session".
  • Do not trust X-Forwarded-For unless a trusted-proxy deployment is explicitly configured. Otherwise bucket rate_limit() on request.remote_addr, or add the same guard is_loopback_request() already uses.
  • Add per-account failed-authentication throttling or lockout.
  • Consider hmac.compare_digest() in _check_password() (src/pyload/core/database/user_database.py:61 uses a plain == on the derived hash, contradicting the "always use compare_digest" guidance two files away).

Notes for triage

There is no 0.5.0b3 release on PyPI. The develop branch auto-publishes dev builds (setup.py:86 appends .dev<build> to the VERSION file); the newest at time of testing was 0.5.0b3.dev101. The Perms.ANY = 0 design is long-standing, but only the 0.5.0b3.dev* line was verified here, please confirm whether 0.5.0b2.* and 0.4.x are affected before finalizing the version range.

Impact

Online brute force of the administrator account leading to full administrative takeover. A successful response additionally discloses the target account's id, name, email, role, and permission bits.

The application does not adequately verify the identity of a user, device, or process before granting access. Typical impact: unauthorized access to functions or data reserved for authenticated parties.

GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 has a CVSS score of 8.1 (High). The vector is network-reachable, low 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. No fixed version is listed yet, so configuration controls and monitoring matter more in the interim.

Affected versions

pyload-ng (>= 0.5.0b3.dev1, <= 0.5.0b3.dev101)

Security releases

Not available

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

No fixed version is listed for GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 yet.

In the interim: Keep the dependency up to date. Ensure authentication checks are present and cannot be bypassed by manipulating request parameters.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8? GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 is a high-severity improper authentication vulnerability in pyload-ng (pip), affecting versions >= 0.5.0b3.dev1, <= 0.5.0b3.dev101. No fixed version is listed yet. The application does not adequately verify the identity of a user, device, or process before granting access.
  2. How severe is GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8? GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 has a CVSS score of 8.1 (High). 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 pyload-ng are affected by GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8? pyload-ng (pip) versions >= 0.5.0b3.dev1, <= 0.5.0b3.dev101 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8? No fixed version is listed for GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
  5. Is GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 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 GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8 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 GHSA-68W4-83FH-F2W8? No fixed version is listed yet. In the interim: Keep the dependency up to date. Ensure authentication checks are present and cannot be bypassed by manipulating request parameters.

Other vulnerabilities in pyload-ng

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.