GHSA-g5vh-55hw-rxm8
MEDIUMGHSA-g5vh-55hw-rxm8 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) CWE-203 vulnerability in github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-g5vh-55hw-rxm8 is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
GoFiber Vulnerable to Username Enumeration via Timing Oracle in BasicAuth Default Authorizer
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- 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 GHSA-g5vh-55hw-rxm8.
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-g5vh-55hw-rxm8 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 0 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/gofiber/fiber/v3Real-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
The default Authorizer function in GoFiber's BasicAuth middleware uses short-circuit evaluation that skips password hash comparison for non-existent usernames. With bcrypt-hashed passwords (the primary use case), the timing difference between a valid and invalid username is approximately 1,000,000:1 (~100ms vs ~100ns), enabling reliable remote username enumeration.
Vulnerable Code
File: middleware/basicauth/config.go, lines 126-138
if cfg.Authorizer == nil {
verifiers := make(map[string]func(string) bool, len(cfg.Users))
for u, hpw := range cfg.Users {
v, err := parseHashedPassword(hpw)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
verifiers[u] = v
}
cfg.Authorizer = func(user, pass string, _ fiber.Ctx) bool {
verify, ok := verifiers[user]
return ok && verify(pass) // line 137: short-circuit skips verify() if user unknown
}
}
Data Flow
- Attacker sends
Authorization: Basic <base64(candidate:wrongpass)> - BasicAuth middleware decodes credentials and calls
cfg.Authorizer(user, pass, c) - Map lookup
verifiers[user]returnsok=falsefor non-existent users - Go
&&short-circuit:false && verify(pass)returns immediately without callingverify() - For valid users,
verify(pass)executesbcrypt.CompareHashAndPassword()(line 167: ~100ms at default cost 10) - Timing difference: ~100ns (invalid user) vs ~100ms (valid user) = 1,000,000:1 ratio
Timing comparison by hash type:
| Hash Type | Valid User | Invalid User | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| bcrypt ($2) | ~100 ms | ~100 ns | 1,000,000:1 |
| SHA-512 | ~1-5 us | ~100 ns | 10-50:1 |
| SHA-256 | ~1-5 us | ~100 ns | 10-50:1 |
Impact
- Username enumeration: Attacker reliably determines which usernames exist by measuring response latency
- Targeted brute force: After enumerating valid usernames, password brute force is focused only on real accounts
- Account discovery: In applications where usernames are sensitive (internal tools, admin panels), leaking their existence is itself a security issue
Notes
- Password hash comparisons themselves are timing-safe:
subtle.ConstantTimeCompareis used correctly for SHA-256 (line 185), SHA-512 (line 176), and bcrypt uses its own constant-time comparison - The fix is to always execute a dummy hash comparison for unknown users:
bcrypt.CompareHashAndPassword(dummyHash, []byte(pass))and discard the result - This pattern matches CVE-2023-36456 (Authentik timing oracle) and similar findings in other auth libraries
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 | all versions | 3.3.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3. 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 github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 to 3.3.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-g5vh-55hw-rxm8 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-g5vh-55hw-rxm8 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-g5vh-55hw-rxm8. 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-g5vh-55hw-rxm8 in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-g5vh-55hw-rxm8 across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.