bypass_system_prompt is an internal flag used by utils/middleware.py and utils/chat.py to skip applying the model system prompt on recursive base-model calls, but it was still declared as a positional argument on the openai/ollama chat-completion route handlers, so FastAPI bound it from the query string. Move it to request.state so external clients cannot set it, matching how bypass_filter is handled.
Drop the argument from both route signatures and read getattr(request.state, 'bypass_system_prompt', False); utils/chat.py sets request.state.bypass_system_prompt alongside bypass_filter and drops the kwarg from the two route-handler calls (the recursive self-calls keep it). Mirrors c0385f60b.
Co-authored-by: anishgirianish <161533316+anishgirianish@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Starlette reconstructs request.url.path from the HTTP Host header without
validation. An attacker can inject a path into the Host header to make
request.url.path return a different value than the path Starlette routes on.
The API key endpoint restriction check was using request.url.path to decide
whether to allow or deny access — making it bypassable via a crafted Host
header on any Starlette version prior to 1.0.1.
Fix: replace request.url.path with request.scope["path"], which reads the
raw ASGI scope path that Starlette uses for routing. This value is set by
the ASGI server from the actual request path and cannot be injected via
HTTP headers, making it safe regardless of Starlette version.
Affected code path:
get_current_user_by_api_key() in backend/open_webui/utils/auth.py
(only triggered when ENABLE_API_KEYS_ENDPOINT_RESTRICTIONS is enabled)
References:
CVE-2026-48710 / BadHost
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2026/05/millions-of-ai-agents-imperiled-by-critical-vulnerability-in-open-source-package/
_process_picture_url validated the initial picture URL with validate_url()
but then aiohttp followed 3xx redirects without re-validating the target,
so a validate_url-passing public URL could 302 to an internal address and
the body was base64-stored in the user's profile_image_url. This is the
sixth call site of the CVE-2026-45401 redirect-bypass cohort; the other
five already pass allow_redirects=AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS. Apply
the same.
has_access_to_file granted access whenever the file was attached to a
shared chat the user could read, ignoring the requested access_type. A
read-only shared-chat recipient therefore satisfied write and delete
checks and could delete or mutate the chat owner's attached file. Gate
the shared-chat branch on read access, matching the channels branch
directly above it.
Co-authored-by: oxsignal <oxsignal@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix: prevent redirect-based SSRF in get_image_base64_from_url
Cohort follow-up to PR #24491. That PR patched three call sites
(SafeWebBaseLoader._scrape, get_content_from_url, load_url_image) to
pass allow_redirects=False on the underlying HTTP client; this fourth
call site in utils/files.py was missed.
get_image_base64_from_url() is invoked from convert_url_images_to_base64
in utils/middleware.py on every /api/chat/completions request whose
message content includes an image_url part. validate_url() is called on
the originally-submitted URL only; the aiohttp session.get() call had
no allow_redirects argument and the shared session pool does not
override the aiohttp default (allow_redirects=True). An authenticated
user sending a chat message with image_url pointing at an attacker host
that 302-redirects to 169.254.169.254 / 127.0.0.1 / RFC1918 reached the
internal target. This is the most reachable variant in the redirect
cluster: no special endpoint, no admin permission, no feature flag.
Apply the same one-line fix as the other three call sites: pass
allow_redirects=AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS (defaults to False).
Reported by nayakchinmohan in GHSA-88jq-grjp-jx6f; consolidated under
GHSA-rh5x-h6pp-cjj6.
Co-authored-by: nayakchinmohan <nayakchinmohan@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: enforce collection write access on process_file endpoint
Cohort follow-up to ba83613ff. That commit added _validate_collection_access
to process_text and process_web (the user-supplied collection_name path)
but missed process_file in the same router.
process_file accepts a user-supplied collection_name and writes the file's
embedded content into that collection via save_docs_to_vector_db. The
file_id is gated by file ownership (line 1562) but collection_name was
unchecked, so an authenticated user could append content from a file they
own into another user's knowledge-base collection by passing the victim's
KB UUID as collection_name. Identical pattern to the process_text and
process_web gaps that ba83613ff closed.
Apply the same one-line gate as the sibling endpoints: when
collection_name is user-supplied (not the default file-{file.id} fallback),
require write access via _validate_collection_access. The shared validator
delegates to filter_accessible_collections, which already correctly
handles file-* prefixes (via has_access_to_file) and KB UUIDs
(via Knowledges.check_access_by_user_id) — admins bypass.
Reported by tenbbughunters (Tenable) in GHSA-4g37-7p2c-38r9 (the
comprehensive write-path filing covering process_text / process_file /
process_web / process_youtube and the _validate_collection_access UUID
root cause), and independently re-identified for the missed process_file
call site by kodareef5 in GHSA-4m74-3cmc-293g.
Co-authored-by: tenbbughunters <tenbbughunters@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: kodareef5 <kodareef5@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: enforce collection write access on process_files_batch endpoint
Cohort follow-up to ba83613ff and the prior process_file fix on this
branch. process_files_batch (line 2604) is the third write endpoint in
the same router that accepts a user-supplied collection_name; it was
covered in the same Tenable filing as process_file and was missed by
the same cohort fix. The endpoint validates per-file ownership at line
2642 but does not check whether the caller has write access to the
target collection_name before save_docs_to_vector_db writes into it
at line 2683-2690 with add=True.
Apply the same one-line gate as the sibling endpoints. Validate only
when collection_name is user-supplied (truthy) so the existing fall
through behavior for the None case is unchanged.
Same Tenable / kodareef5 cohort as the previous commit.
Co-authored-by: tenbbughunters <tenbbughunters@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: kodareef5 <kodareef5@users.noreply.github.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: nayakchinmohan <nayakchinmohan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: tenbbughunters <tenbbughunters@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: kodareef5 <kodareef5@users.noreply.github.com>
