GHSA-rgvg-3wpc-h44p
HIGHGHSA-rgvg-3wpc-h44p is a high-severity (CVSS 8.2) CWE-915 vulnerability in @budibase/server. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-rgvg-3wpc-h44p is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
Budibase: Mass Assignment in Webhook Trigger Allows Cross-Workspace Automation Execution via appId Override
Blast Radius
@budibase/serverReal-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 webhook trigger endpoint in Budibase is publicly accessible and passes the full HTTP request body into automation execution parameters. A mass assignment vulnerability in externalTrigger() allows an attacker to overwrite the internal appId property by including it in the webhook POST body. When the automation is processed asynchronously (the default path for webhooks without a collect step), the worker executes the attacker-defined automation in the context of the victim's workspace, granting full read/write access to the victim's database.
Details
The webhook trigger route is registered as a public endpoint with no authentication:
// packages/server/src/api/routes/webhook.ts:12
publicRoutes.post("/api/webhooks/trigger/:instance/:id", controller.trigger)
The controller passes the raw request body as fields alongside the server-derived appId:
// packages/server/src/api/controllers/webhook.ts:142-148
await triggers.externalTrigger(target, {
fields: {
...ctx.request.body, // attacker-controlled
body: ctx.request.body,
},
appId: prodAppId, // server-controlled
})
In externalTrigger(), for webhook-triggered automations, params.fields is spread back into params:
// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:237-241
params = {
...params, // appId: prodAppId (server-controlled)
...params.fields, // appId: VICTIM_ID (attacker-controlled, overwrites above)
fields: {},
}
Because params.fields is spread after params, any key in the attacker's body overwrites the corresponding property in params. An attacker including "appId": "app_VICTIM_WORKSPACE_ID" in the POST body overwrites the legitimate, server-derived appId.
The contaminated params become data.event and are queued asynchronously:
// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:244,271
const data: AutomationData = { automation, event: params }
// ...
return quotas.addAction(() => automationQueue.add(data, JOB_OPTS))
The async worker uses job.data.event.appId to set the workspace context:
// packages/server/src/threads/automation.ts:917,929-930
const workspaceId = job.data.event.appId // attacker-controlled
// ...
return await context.doInAutomationContext({
workspaceId, // victim's workspace
automationId,
task: async () => { /* automation steps run here */ }
})
The synchronous path (for webhooks with a collect step) correctly overwrites appId at triggers.ts:264:
data.event = {
...data.event,
appId: context.getWorkspaceId(), // server-controlled fix
automation,
}
This proves the developers intended appId to be server-controlled but missed applying the same fix to the async path, which is the default for all webhooks without a collect step.
PoC
Prerequisites: Attacker has builder access to their own Budibase workspace and knows a victim workspace ID (format: app_<uuid>).
Step 1: Attacker creates an automation in their own workspace with a webhook trigger and data-exfiltration steps (e.g., Query Rows → Execute Script to send data externally).
Step 2: Attacker creates a webhook for that automation and notes the webhook URL:
POST /api/webhooks/trigger/<ATTACKER_INSTANCE>/<WEBHOOK_ID>
Step 3: Attacker triggers the webhook with the victim's workspace ID injected into the body:
curl -X POST https://budibase.example.com/api/webhooks/trigger/app_ATTACKER_ID/wh_WEBHOOK_ID \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"appId": "app_VICTIM_WORKSPACE_ID", "normalData": "test"}'
Expected result: The automation defined in the attacker's workspace executes in the context of the victim's workspace. All database operations (Query Rows, Create Row, Delete Row, Execute Script, etc.) operate on the victim's data.
Additional overridable fields via the same mechanism:
timeout(automation.ts:443-444): override automation execution timeoutuser(automation.ts:413,435): set user context for automation stepsmetadata.automationChainCount(automation.ts:293): bypass chain depth limits
Impact
An attacker with builder access to their own Budibase workspace can execute arbitrary automations (of their own design) in the context of any other workspace on the same Budibase instance, provided they know the victim's workspace ID. This enables:
- Full data exfiltration: Query Rows steps read all tables in the victim's workspace
- Data manipulation: Create Row, Update Row, Delete Row steps modify victim data
- Arbitrary code execution in victim context: Execute Script steps run JavaScript with access to victim's environment variables and database
- Cross-tenant boundary violation: In multi-tenant deployments (Budibase Cloud), the tenant ID is derived from the workspace ID, so the attack crosses tenant boundaries
The attack requires no authentication (the webhook endpoint is public) and leaves minimal audit trail since the automation execution is attributed to the attacker's automation definition but runs in the victim's context.
Recommended Fix
In packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts, apply the same appId fix that exists in the synchronous path to the async path as well. The fix should ensure appId is always server-controlled before queuing:
// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:244-272
const data: AutomationData = { automation, event: params }
// ... trigger filter check ...
+ // Ensure appId is always server-controlled, not user-supplied
+ data.event.appId = context.getWorkspaceId()
if (getResponses) {
data.event = {
...data.event,
appId: context.getWorkspaceId(),
automation,
}
return quotas.addAction(() =>
executeInThread({ data } as AutomationJob, { onProgress })
)
} else {
return quotas.addAction(() => automationQueue.add(data, JOB_OPTS))
}
Alternatively, use an allowlist approach for the webhook field spread to prevent any internal property from being overwritten:
// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:237-241
const { appId, timeout, user, metadata, ...safeFields } = params.fields
params = {
...params,
...safeFields,
fields: {},
}
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | @budibase/server | all versions | 3.39.9 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @budibase/server. 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 @budibase/server to 3.39.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-rgvg-3wpc-h44p 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-rgvg-3wpc-h44p 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-rgvg-3wpc-h44p. 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-rgvg-3wpc-h44p in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-rgvg-3wpc-h44p across npm dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.