Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
📦
📦 npm
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

CVE-2026-53514 — better-auth

HIGHFix: better-auth/better-auth@23094a6

CVE-2026-53514 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.7) Improper Authentication vulnerability in better-auth. A fix is available for better-auth — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Better Auth: Unauthorized invitation acceptance via unverified email match in organization plugin

Also known asGHSA-fmh4-wcc4-5jm3
Published
Updated
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Oct 5, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

  • A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
  • CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-53514.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs9th percentile — riskier than 9% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.23%0.47%0.70%0.1%0.2%0.2%Aug 26Oct 26Oct 26

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

CVE-2026-53514 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 383,485 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.

810other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream
better-authnpm
12.6Mdownloads / week

Description

Am I affected?

Users are affected if all of the following are true:

  • Their application uses better-auth with the organization plugin (import { organization } from "better-auth/plugins/organization").
  • Their application enables a sign-up surface that allows arbitrary unverified email registration. Most commonly emailAndPassword: { enabled: true } without requireEmailVerification: true.
  • Their application has not set requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true on the organization() options.
  • Their application invitation distribution flow allows anyone other than the invited mailbox owner to obtain the invitationId. Examples: admin UI surfacing the link, copy-paste into chat, forwarded email, mail-forwarding rules at the recipient's domain, link previews logging the URL, or a custom sendInvitationEmail integration that sends to a non-owner channel.

If their application set emailAndPassword: { enabled: true, requireEmailVerification: true } so unverified rows cannot reach a usable session, they are not affected. Setting requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true closes acceptInvitation and rejectInvitation, but getInvitation and listUserInvitations remain ungated even with that flag.

Fix:

  1. Upgrade to [email protected] or later.
  2. If developers cannot upgrade their application, see workarounds below.

Summary

The organization plugin's acceptInvitation endpoint trusts an email-string equality check as proof that the session user owns the invited address. With Better Auth's stock emailAndPassword: { enabled: true } configuration, requireEmailVerification defaults to false, so an attacker can sign up a row keyed to [email protected] (auto-signed-in, emailVerified: false) before the legitimate owner. When an organization admin invites that address, the attacker presents the invitationId and accepts the invitation, joining the organization at the invited role.

Details

The recipient gate compares invitation.email.toLowerCase() to session.user.email.toLowerCase() and returns 403 on mismatch. The opt-in requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation flag adds an emailVerified check, but it defaults to false and only fires on acceptInvitation and rejectInvitation; getInvitation and listUserInvitations have no emailVerified gate at all.

The bearer token (invitationId) is by default 32 chars over [a-zA-Z0-9] (~190 bits), so the realistic attack vector is leakage of the invitation link rather than brute force.

The fix shape defaults the emailVerified gate to on and extends it across all four invitation endpoints (acceptInvitation, rejectInvitation, getInvitation, listUserInvitations). This is the same trust-primitive class as GHSA-g38m-r43w-p2q7 (OAuth auto-link); both ship the rule "email equality is not ownership proof; both sides must prove ownership".

Patches

Fixed in [email protected]. All four invitation recipient endpoints (acceptInvitation, rejectInvitation, getInvitation, listUserInvitations) now require the session user's emailVerified to be true in addition to the email-string match. The requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation option default flips from false to true, so applications are secure out of the box.

getInvitation and listUserInvitations use the new EMAIL_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED_FOR_INVITATION error code so the wording matches the operation; acceptInvitation and rejectInvitation keep the existing EMAIL_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED_BEFORE_ACCEPTING_OR_REJECTING_INVITATION code. Server-side calls to listUserInvitations that pass ctx.query.email without an authenticated session continue to bypass the gate; the gate is specific to session-authenticated recipient calls.

Integrators who intentionally accept invitations on unverified sessions can preserve the legacy permissive behavior with organization({ requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: false }). The option is marked @deprecated; the gate at each call site carries a FIXME pointing at the next-minor follow-up that drops the option and makes the check unconditional. Operators that take this opt-out should understand the takeover risk before doing so.

Workarounds

If developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately:

  • Set organization({ requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true }). Closes acceptInvitation and rejectInvitation against unverified sessions. Does not close getInvitation or listUserInvitations.
  • Set emailAndPassword.requireEmailVerification: true (or remove email/password sign-up entirely). Closes the pre-registration step itself.
  • Layer middleware on the organization invitation routes that asserts session.user.emailVerified === true and rejects otherwise.

Impact

  • Account takeover via pre-account hijacking on the org invitation surface: the attacker, holding only an unverified self-issued session and the leaked invitationId, joins the organization as a member at the invited role.
  • Organization membership reach: the attacker reads invitation contents and any organization-scoped data the joined role can see, and acts as a member of the victim organization.

Credit

Reported by @widavies.

Resources

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
📦npmbetter-authall versions1.6.11npm install better-auth@1.6.11

Affected Products

1 product · 2 configurations
Application
better authbetter-auth
≥ 1.6.14 && < 1.6.11
range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for better-auth, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update better-auth to 1.6.11 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-53514 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Am I affected? Users are affected if all of the following are true: - Their application uses `better-auth` with the `organization` plugin (`import { organization } from "better-auth/plugins/organization"`). - Their application enables a sign-up surface that allows arbitrary unverified email registration. Most commonly `emailAndPassword: { enabled: true }` without `requireEmailVerification: true`. - Their application has not set `requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true` on the `organization()` options. - Their application invitation distribution flow allows anyone other than the invite
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is CVE-2026-53514 in your dependencies?

Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.

CVE-2026-53514: better-auth Auth Bypass — Fixed in 1.6.11