GHSA-9q5m-jfc4-wc92 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.7) CWE-362 vulnerability in github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth. A fix is available for github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Tinyauth has OAuth account confusion via shared mutable state on singleton service instances
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.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-9q5m-jfc4-wc92.
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-9q5m-jfc4-wc92 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
github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauthReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
All three OAuth service implementations (GenericOAuthService, GithubOAuthService, GoogleOAuthService) store PKCE verifiers and access tokens as mutable struct fields on singleton instances shared across all concurrent requests. When two users initiate OAuth login for the same provider concurrently, a race condition between VerifyCode() and Userinfo() causes one user to receive a session with the other user's identity.
Details
The OAuthBrokerService.GetService() returns a single shared instance per provider for every request. The OAuth flow stores intermediate state as struct fields on this singleton:
Token storage — generic_oauth_service.go line 96:
generic.token = token // Shared mutable field on singleton
Verifier storage — generic_oauth_service.go line 81:
generic.verifier = verifier // Shared mutable field on singleton
In the callback handler oauth_controller.go lines 136–143, the code calls:
err = service.VerifyCode(code) // line 136 — stores token on singleton
// ... race window ...
user, err := controller.broker.GetUser(req.Provider) // line 143 — reads token from singleton
Between these two calls, a concurrent request's VerifyCode() can overwrite the token field, causing GetUser() → Userinfo() to fetch the wrong user's identity claims.
The same pattern exists in all three implementations:
PoC
Race scenario (two concurrent OAuth callbacks):
- User A and User B both click "Login with GitHub" on the same tinyauth instance
- Both are redirected to GitHub, authorize, and GitHub redirects both back with authorization codes
- Both callbacks arrive at tinyauth nearly simultaneously:
Timeline:
t0: Request A → service.VerifyCode(codeA) → singleton.token = tokenA
t1: Request B → service.VerifyCode(codeB) → singleton.token = tokenB (overwrites tokenA)
t2: Request A → broker.GetUser("github") → Userinfo() reads singleton.token = tokenB
t3: Request A receives User B's identity (email, name, groups)
User A now has a tinyauth session with User B's email, gaining access to all resources User B is authorized for via tinyauth's ACL.
PKCE verifier DoS variant: Even with PKCE, concurrent oauthURLHandler calls overwrite the verifier field, causing VerifyCode() to send the wrong verifier to the OAuth provider, which rejects the exchange.
Static verification: Run Go's race detector on a test that calls VerifyCode and Userinfo concurrently on the same service instance — the -race flag will flag data races on the token and verifier fields.
Go race detector confirmation: Running a concurrent test with go test -race on the singleton service detects 4 data races on the token and verifier fields. Without the race detector, measured token overwrite rate is 99.9% (9,985/10,000 iterations).
Test environment: tinyauth v5.0.4, commit 592b7ded, Go race detector + source code analysis
Impact
An attacker who times their OAuth callback to race with a victim's callback can obtain a tinyauth session with the victim's identity. This grants unauthorized access to all resources the victim is permitted to access through tinyauth's ACL system. The probability of collision increases with concurrent OAuth traffic.
The PKCE verifier overwrite additionally causes a denial-of-service: concurrent OAuth logins for the same provider reliably fail.
Suggested Fix
Pass verifier and token through method parameters or return values instead of storing them on the singleton:
func (generic *GenericOAuthService) VerifyCode(code string, verifier string) (*oauth2.Token, error) {
return generic.config.Exchange(generic.context, code, oauth2.VerifierOption(verifier))
}
func (generic *GenericOAuthService) Userinfo(token *oauth2.Token) (config.Claims, error) {
client := generic.config.Client(generic.context, token)
// ...
}
Store the PKCE verifier in the session/cookie associated with the OAuth state parameter, not on the service struct.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth | all versions | 1.0.1-0.20260401140714-fc1d4f2082a5go get github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth@v1.0.1-0.20260401140714-fc1d4f2082a5 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update github.com/steveiliop56/tinyauth to 1.0.1-0.20260401140714-fc1d4f2082a5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-9q5m-jfc4-wc92 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-9q5m-jfc4-wc92 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-9q5m-jfc4-wc92. 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-9q5m-jfc4-wc92 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-9q5m-jfc4-wc92 across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.