New MCP server — Bring vulnerability intelligence into your AI
Back to feed

CVE-2026-27898

NVDCIRCLENISA

EUVD-2026-9504 · Published Mar 4, 2026

Vaultwarden has Unauthorized Access via Partial Update API on Another User’s Cipher

Summary

In the test environment, it was confirmed that an authenticated regular user can specify another user’s cipher_id and call:

PUT /api/ciphers/{id}/partial

Even though the standard retrieval API correctly denies access to that cipher, the partial update endpoint returns 200 OK and exposes cipherDetails (including name, notes, data, secureNote, etc.).

Description

put_cipher_partial retrieves the target Cipher but does not perform ownership or access control checks before returning to_json.
Authorization checks present in the normal update API are missing here.
src/api/core/ciphers.rs:717

let Some(cipher) = Cipher::find_by_uuid(&cipher_id, &conn).await else {
    err!("Cipher doesn't exist")
};

if let Some(ref folder_id) = data.folder_id {
    if Folder::find_by_uuid_and_user(folder_id, &headers.user.uuid, &conn).await.is_none() {
        err!("Invalid folder", "Folder does not exist or belongs to another user");
    }
}

// Move cipher
cipher.move_to_folder(data.folder_id.clone(), &headers.user.uuid, &conn).await?;

// Update favorite
cipher.set_favorite(Some(data.favorite), &headers.user.uuid, &conn).await?;

Ok(Json(cipher.to_json(&headers.host, &headers.user.uuid, None, CipherSyncType::User, &conn).await?))

By comparison, the standard update API includes an explicit authorization check:
src/api/core/ciphers.rs:688

if !cipher.is_write_accessible_to_user(&headers.user.uuid, &conn).await {
    err!("Cipher is not write accessible")
}

The to_json method does not abort processing when access restrictions are not met; instead, it proceeds to construct and return a detailed response.
src/db/models/cipher.rs:175

let (read_only, hide_passwords, _) = if sync_type == CipherSyncType::User {
    match self.get_access_restrictions(user_uuid, cipher_sync_data, conn).await {
        Some((ro, hp, mn)) => (ro, hp, mn),
        None => {
            error!("Cipher ownership assertion failure");
            (true, true, false)
        }
    }
} else {
    (false, false, false)
};

src/db/models/cipher.rs:335

let mut json_object = json!({
    "object": "cipherDetails",
    "id": self.uuid,
    "type": self.atype,
    ...
    "name": self.name,
    "notes": self.notes,
    "fields": fields_json,
    "data": data_json,
    ...
});

Preconditions

  • The attacker possesses a valid regular-user JWT (Bearer token).
  • The attacker knows the target (victim) cipher_id.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Prepare the attacker JWT and victim cipher_id (preconditions).

  2. Baseline check: confirm that standard retrieval is denied.
    <img width="2014" height="855" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/32b12cc9-3672-4a88-afd0-ef7715474662" />

  3. Execute the vulnerable API. Confirm that 200 OK is returned and that cipherDetails includes fields such as id, name, notes, secureNote, etc.
    <img width="2018" height="1113" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/341b330c-8d55-4f06-a622-0d7da28f62fd" />

Potential Impact

  • Unauthorized disclosure of other users’ cipher information (confidentiality breach).
  • Creation of unauthorized associations within the attacker’s user context (e.g., favorite or folder operations).
  • The response from /api/ciphers/<cipher_id>/partial includes attachments[].url.

In filesystem (FS) deployments, this returns a tokenized endpoint such as:

/attachments/<cipher>/<file>?token=...

In object storage deployments, it returns a short-lived pre-signed URL.

As a result, an attacker can use these URLs to directly download attachment data that they are not authorized to access.

This can lead to disclosure of sensitive information stored in the Vault, including personal data and authentication credentials. Such exposure may further result in account compromise, lateral movement, and other secondary impacts.

Technologies

Dani-Garcia VaultwardenVaultwarden Vaultwarden

Weaknesses

CWE-639

CVSS scores

  • v3.15.4CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

MITRE ATT&CK

Inferred

Where this vulnerability fits in an attack

Initial Access

References

Potentially impacted assets

See if this affects your attack surface

Latest trending attack

Criticalyesterday

Google Brotli decoder - Remote Code Execution via compressed requests (Exploitation Check)

This control is the second step of the Patrowl response to CVE-2026-111497 (Node2Shell). It complements the first control of 22 October 2026, which focused on the Node.js runtime, and does not replace it. Why a second control CVE-2026-111497 is an out-of-bounds write in the Google Brotli decoder, the library that decompresses Brotli ("br") data. It was first published as a Node.js vulnerability, because Node.js bundles this decoder. Later publications showed that the flaw is in the library itself. Every product that embeds an affected version of the decoder is concerned, whatever its language or vendor. A public proof of concept demonstrates code execution. Any server that decompresses request bodies sent with "Content-Encoding: br" exposes the decoder to unauthenticated attackers. Known cases include Express 5 and NestJS 11 on Node.js, Koa and Fastify setups, Bun, Envoy and Istio with request decompression enabled, and any application or reverse proxy that decodes Brotli request bodies with an affected library. The flaw also works in the other direction. A malicious server can compromise an unpatched client that decodes a Brotli response, for example Node.js fetch(), Python clients (requests, httpx, aiohttp, Scrapy) with the Brotli or brotlicffi package, or libcurl builds with Brotli support. What this control checks Patrowl sends small, valid Brotli-compressed requests to each asset and observes whether the server decodes them. The check does not depend on the technology: it detects the behaviour, whatever the stack behind it. These requests are what any legitimate client could send. They never reach the vulnerable code path and cannot affect the availability of the service. How to read the result Potentially impacted means the asset decodes Brotli request bodies: the attack surface is exposed. It does not confirm that the asset is vulnerable. The version of the Brotli decoder in use is not visible from the outside. This check covers applications that parse request bodies on their root path. A Not impacted result does not rule out exposure on other routes, nor on the client side. Checking the versions on the servers remains the only exhaustive verification. Affected and fixed versions Google Brotli 1.0.3 to 1.2.0 are affected, fixed in 1.0.10, 1.1.1 and 1.2.1. Fixed releases of the main products embedding it: Node.js 22.23.4, 24.22.1 and 26.12.1 (end-of-life lines 20.x and older and 25.x receive no fix), Bun 1.4.4, Envoy 1.37.8, 1.38.6, 1.39.3 and 1.40.0, Istio 1.29.9, 1.30.6 and 1.31.2, Python Brotli 1.2.1 and brotlicffi 1.2.1.0. Products that link against the system library depend on the Brotli package of the Linux distribution. Recommendations Update every component that embeds the Brotli decoder (only real fix). Start with the assets flagged by this control. Restart the processes after the update. Rebuild containers, single-executable applications and appliances that bundle an affected runtime or library. Reduce the exposure until the update is deployed. Reject requests with "Content-Encoding: br" at the reverse proxy, load balancer or WAF, case-insensitively and including lists such as "gzip, br". On Envoy and Istio, disable request decompression for Brotli. Review outbound calls. List the features that fetch content from servers you do not control, and patch the services that host them first.

Take 15 minutes to discover our platform with our experts

Patrowl Intel platform screenshot