github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-24 08:01:56 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #6710] Organization Plugin: "inviteMember" doesn't check if role actually exists. #10597

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-13 06:50:27 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 5 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 06:50:27 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @joshsedl on GitHub (Dec 12, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/6710

Is this suited for github?

  • Yes, this is suited for github

To Reproduce

Problem

Currently, when creating an invitation through "authClient.organization.inviteMember()", we can provide any string as the "role" parameter, even if this role doesn't exist (this problem might also exist for the "team" parameter, but we are currently not using "teams").

Steps to reproduce

  • Check your auth.ts and auth-client.ts and check that the randomString role doesn't exist.
  • Execute authClient.organization.inviteMember() with role set to randomString.
  • See that the Invitation is sent, even if the role is NOT valid.

Proposed solution

  • Add role validation based on the roles set in auth.ts.

Current vs. Expected behavior

See above.

What version of Better Auth are you using?

1.4.5

System info

{
  "system": {
    "platform": "linux",
    "arch": "x64",
    "version": "#1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jun  5 18:30:46 UTC 2025",
    "release": "6.6.87.2-microsoft-standard-WSL2",
    "cpuCount": 16,
    "cpuModel": "11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-11800H @ 2.30GHz",
    "totalMemory": "47.05 GB",
    "freeMemory": "37.14 GB"
  },
  "node": {
    "version": "v24.1.0",
    "env": "development"
  },
  "packageManager": {
    "name": "npm",
    "version": "11.3.0"
  },
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "vue",
      "version": "^3.5.22"
    },
    {
      "name": "nuxt",
      "version": "^4.1.2"
    }
  ],
  "databases": [
    {
      "name": "@prisma/client",
      "version": "6.16.3"
    }
  ],
  "betterAuth": {
    "version": "^1.3.26",
    "config": null
  }
}

Which area(s) are affected? (Select all that apply)

Backend

Auth config (if applicable)

import { betterAuth } from "better-auth"
export const auth = betterAuth({
  emailAndPassword: {  
    enabled: true
  },
});

Additional context

No response

Originally created by @joshsedl on GitHub (Dec 12, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/6710 ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### To Reproduce ## Problem Currently, when creating an invitation through "authClient.organization.inviteMember()", we can provide any string as the "role" parameter, even if this role doesn't exist (this problem might also exist for the "team" parameter, but we are currently not using "teams"). ## Steps to reproduce - Check your auth.ts and auth-client.ts and check that the `randomString` role doesn't exist. - Execute `authClient.organization.inviteMember()` with `role` set to `randomString`. - See that the Invitation is sent, even if the role is NOT valid. ## Proposed solution - Add role validation based on the roles set in auth.ts. ### Current vs. Expected behavior See above. ### What version of Better Auth are you using? 1.4.5 ### System info ```bash { "system": { "platform": "linux", "arch": "x64", "version": "#1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jun 5 18:30:46 UTC 2025", "release": "6.6.87.2-microsoft-standard-WSL2", "cpuCount": 16, "cpuModel": "11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-11800H @ 2.30GHz", "totalMemory": "47.05 GB", "freeMemory": "37.14 GB" }, "node": { "version": "v24.1.0", "env": "development" }, "packageManager": { "name": "npm", "version": "11.3.0" }, "frameworks": [ { "name": "vue", "version": "^3.5.22" }, { "name": "nuxt", "version": "^4.1.2" } ], "databases": [ { "name": "@prisma/client", "version": "6.16.3" } ], "betterAuth": { "version": "^1.3.26", "config": null } } ``` ### Which area(s) are affected? (Select all that apply) Backend ### Auth config (if applicable) ```typescript import { betterAuth } from "better-auth" export const auth = betterAuth({ emailAndPassword: { enabled: true }, }); ``` ### Additional context _No response_
GiteaMirror added the lockedbug labels 2026-04-13 06:50:27 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 06:50:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2025):

You're correct—currently, inviteMember does not validate if the provided role exists in the organization's configured roles. Any string can be passed as a role, and the invitation will be created without error, which can lead to invalid or inconsistent role assignments. In contrast, the team parameter is validated: if teams are enabled, the code checks that the provided team(s) exist and throws an error if not found, but no such check exists for roles (source).

Roles are defined by merging the default roles (admin, owner, member) with any custom roles you provide in your plugin options. This merged roles object is available in the plugin context and is used for permission checks elsewhere (source).

Best practice would be to validate the role parameter in inviteMember by checking that each provided role exists in the merged roles object (and, if using dynamic access control, also in the organization's roles in the database). This is how role validation is handled in other endpoints, such as dynamic access control routes (source).

How to implement role validation:
After parsing the roles from the request, add a check like:

const validRoles = Object.keys(ctx.context.orgOptions.roles || defaultRoles);
// If using dynamic roles, also query the OrganizationRole table for additional valid roles
const rolesToCheck = Array.isArray(ctx.body.role) ? ctx.body.role : [ctx.body.role];
for (const role of rolesToCheck) {
  if (!validRoles.includes(role)) {
    throw new APIError("BAD_REQUEST", {
      message: ORGANIZATION_ERROR_CODES.ROLE_NOT_FOUND,
    });
  }
}

If you use dynamic roles, you should also query the OrganizationRole table for the organization and include those role names in validRoles.

This will ensure only valid, configured roles can be assigned via invitations, preventing accidental or malicious assignment of arbitrary roles.

There are open issues and discussions confirming this gap and recommending this validation (example). No merged pull requests currently address this, so adding this check would be a meaningful improvement.

To reply, just mention @dosu.

How did I do? Good | Irrelevant | Incorrect | Verbose | Hallucination | Report 🐛 | Other

Chat with Dosu Open in Cursor Join Discord Share on X

<!-- gh-comment-id:3645947898 --> @dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2025): <!-- Answer --> You're correct—currently, `inviteMember` does not validate if the provided `role` exists in the organization's configured roles. Any string can be passed as a role, and the invitation will be created without error, which can lead to invalid or inconsistent role assignments. In contrast, the `team` parameter is validated: if teams are enabled, the code checks that the provided team(s) exist and throws an error if not found, but no such check exists for roles [(source)](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/6089a57dc7692f26cceaf1f26611bc5ff99f66d3/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/organization/routes/crud-invites.ts#L27-L463). Roles are defined by merging the default roles (`admin`, `owner`, `member`) with any custom roles you provide in your plugin options. This merged roles object is available in the plugin context and is used for permission checks elsewhere [(source)](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/6089a57dc7692f26cceaf1f26611bc5ff99f66d3/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/organization/organization.ts#L71-L914). Best practice would be to validate the `role` parameter in `inviteMember` by checking that each provided role exists in the merged roles object (and, if using dynamic access control, also in the organization's roles in the database). This is how role validation is handled in other endpoints, such as dynamic access control routes [(source)](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/6089a57dc7692f26cceaf1f26611bc5ff99f66d3/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/organization/routes/crud-access-control.ts#L24-L1229). **How to implement role validation:** After parsing the roles from the request, add a check like: ```typescript const validRoles = Object.keys(ctx.context.orgOptions.roles || defaultRoles); // If using dynamic roles, also query the OrganizationRole table for additional valid roles const rolesToCheck = Array.isArray(ctx.body.role) ? ctx.body.role : [ctx.body.role]; for (const role of rolesToCheck) { if (!validRoles.includes(role)) { throw new APIError("BAD_REQUEST", { message: ORGANIZATION_ERROR_CODES.ROLE_NOT_FOUND, }); } } ``` If you use dynamic roles, you should also query the `OrganizationRole` table for the organization and include those role names in `validRoles`. This will ensure only valid, configured roles can be assigned via invitations, preventing accidental or malicious assignment of arbitrary roles. There are open issues and discussions confirming this gap and recommending this validation [(example)](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/6081). No merged pull requests currently address this, so adding this check would be a meaningful improvement. <!-- Dosu Comment Footer --> *To reply, just mention [@dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot).* --- <sup>How did I do? [Good](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/a4171206-5b99-4f4c-b9d1-92793a429113?feedback_type=great_response) | [Irrelevant](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/a4171206-5b99-4f4c-b9d1-92793a429113?feedback_type=irrelevant_answer) | [Incorrect](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/a4171206-5b99-4f4c-b9d1-92793a429113?feedback_type=incorrect_sources) | [Verbose](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/a4171206-5b99-4f4c-b9d1-92793a429113?feedback_type=too_verbose) | [Hallucination](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/a4171206-5b99-4f4c-b9d1-92793a429113?feedback_type=hallucination) | [Report 🐛](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/a4171206-5b99-4f4c-b9d1-92793a429113?feedback_type=bug_report) | [Other](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/a4171206-5b99-4f4c-b9d1-92793a429113?feedback_type=other)</sup> [![Chat with Dosu](https://dosu.dev/dosu-chat-badge.svg)](https://app.dosu.dev/cdda13d9-dd27-4d31-b09a-5d8bec92de21/ask?utm_source=github)&nbsp;[![Open in Cursor](https://dosu.dev/dosu-in-cursor.svg)](https://cursor.com/link/prompt?text=You%27re%20correct%E2%80%94currently%2C%20%60inviteMember%60%20does%20not%20validate%20if%20the%20provided%20%60role%60%20exists%20in%20the%20organization%27s%20configured%20roles.%20Any%20string%20can%20be%20passed%20as%20a%20role%2C%20and%20the%20invitation%20will%20be%20created%20without%20error%2C%20which%20can%20lead%20to%20invalid%20or%20inconsistent%20role%20assignments.%20In%20contrast%2C%20the%20%60team%60%20parameter%20is%20validated%3A%20if%20teams%20are%20enabled%2C%20the%20code%20checks%20that%20the%20provided%20team%28s%29%20exist%20and%20throws%20an%20error%20if%20not%20found%2C%20but%20no%20such%20check%20exists%20for%20roles%20%5B%28source%29%5D%28https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/6089a57dc7692f26cceaf1f26611bc5ff99f66d3/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/organization/routes/crud-invites.ts%23L27-L463%29.%0A%0ARoles%20are%20defined%20by%20merging%20the%20default%20roles%20%28%60admin%60%2C%20%60owner%60%2C%20%60member%60%29%20with%20any%20custom%20roles%20you%20provide%20in%20your%20plugin%20options.%20This%20merged%20roles%20object%20is%20available%20in%20the%20plugin%20context%20and%20is%20used%20for%20permission%20checks%20elsewhere%20%5B%28source%29%5D%28https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/6089a57dc7692f26cceaf1f26611bc5ff99f66d3/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/organization/organization.ts%23L71-L914%29.%0A%0ABest%20practice%20would%20be%20to%20validate%20the%20%60role%60%20parameter%20in%20%60inviteMember%60%20by%20checking%20that%20each%20provided%20role%20exists%20in%20the%20merged%20roles%20object%20%28and%2C%20if%20using%20dynamic%20access%20control%2C%20also%20in%20the%20organization%27s%20roles%20in%20the%20database%29.%20This%20is%20how%20role%20validation%20is%20handled%20in%20other%20endpoints%2C%20such%20as%20dynamic%20access%20control%20routes%20%5B%28source%29%5D%28https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/6089a57dc7692f26cceaf1f26611bc5ff99f66d3/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/organization/routes/crud-access-control.ts%23L24-L1229%29.%0A%0A%2A%2AHow%20to%20implement%20role%20validation%3A%2A%2A%20%20%0AAfter%20parsing%20the%20roles%20from%20the%20request%2C%20add%20a%20check%20like%3A%0A%0A%60%60%60typescript%0Aconst%20validRoles%20%3D%20Object.keys%28ctx.context.orgOptions.roles%20%7C%7C%20defaultRoles%29%3B%0A//%20If%20using%20dynamic%20roles%2C%20also%20query%20the%20OrganizationRole%20table%20for%20additional%20valid%20roles%0Aconst%20rolesToCheck%20%3D%20Array.isArray%28ctx.body.role%29%20%3F%20ctx.body.role%20%3A%20%5Bctx.body.role%5D%3B%0Afor%20%28const%20role%20of%20rolesToCheck%29%20%7B%0A%20%20if%20%28%21validRoles.includes%28role%29%29%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20throw%20new%20APIError%28%22BAD_REQUEST%22%2C%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20message%3A%20ORGANIZATION_ERROR_CODES.ROLE_NOT_FOUND%2C%0A%20%20%20%20%7D%29%3B%0A%20%20%7D%0A%7D%0A%60%60%60%0AIf%20you%20use%20dynamic%20roles%2C%20you%20should%20also%20query%20the%20%60OrganizationRole%60%20table%20for%20the%20organization%20and%20include%20those%20role%20names%20in%20%60validRoles%60.%0A%0AThis%20will%20ensure%20only%20valid%2C%20configured%20roles%20can%20be%20assigned%20via%20invitations%2C%20preventing%20accidental%20or%20malicious%20assignment%20of%20arbitrary%20roles.%0A%0AThere%20are%20open%20issues%20and%20discussions%20confirming%20this%20gap%20and%20recommending%20this%20validation%20%5B%28example%29%5D%28https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/6081%29.%20No%20merged%20pull%20requests%20currently%20address%20this%2C%20so%20adding%20this%20check%20would%20be%20a%20meaningful%20improvement.)&nbsp;[![Join Discord](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&label=)](https://go.dosu.dev/discord-bot)&nbsp;[![Share on X](https://img.shields.io/badge/X-share-black)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%40dosu_ai%20helped%20me%20solve%20this%20issue!&url=https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/6710)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 06:50:32 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2025):

@dosu thanks for the workaround, but this should be solved within better-auth by design, I think.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3646615610 --> @JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2025): @dosu thanks for the workaround, but this should be solved within better-auth by design, I think.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 06:50:33 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025):

@dosu thanks for the workaround, but this should be solved within better-auth by design, I think.

Looking into it!

<!-- gh-comment-id:3655214328 --> @GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025): > [@dosu](https://github.com/dosu) thanks for the workaround, but this should be solved within better-auth by design, I think. Looking into it!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 06:50:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@AVtheking commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025):

could we make this roles type safe too ?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3656106693 --> @AVtheking commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025): could we make this roles type safe too ?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 06:50:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@joshsedl commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025):

Thanks for the fast fix!

<!-- gh-comment-id:3659793998 --> @joshsedl commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025): Thanks for the fast fix!
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
adapter
astro
awaiting external contributor
blocked
breaking
breaking change
bug
c-devops
core
credentials
database
dependencies
devops
devtools
docs
documentation
duplicate
elysia
enhancement
enterprise
expo
express
fastify
good first issue
help wanted
hono
identity
infra
integration
invalid
javascript
locked
maintenance
need-more-information
needs: info
needs: repro
nextjs
nuxt
oauth
organization
P0
payments
perf
platform
plugin
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
ready
regression
remix
security
social-provider
solid
stale
svelte
tanstack-start
tracking
version-bump
vue
wontfix
No Label bug locked
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#10597
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?