Skip to content

Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can suppress calendar alerts instance-wide via a non-numeric alert value

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Sep 4, 2026 in open-webui/open-webui

Package

pip open-webui (pip)

Affected versions

>= 0.9.0, < 0.11.1

Patched versions

0.11.1

Description

Any authenticated user can suppress calendar alerts instance-wide via a non-numeric alert value

Summary

Calendar events carry a free-form meta object that is stored exactly as submitted, with no validation of the values inside it. The scheduler reads the per-event alert offset out of that object in a single pass that covers every user's upcoming events, and compares it numerically without checking that it is a number. Any verified user could store a text value there, which made the comparison raise and abort the whole pass, so no calendar reminder fired for anyone on the instance while that event stayed inside the lookahead window.

Preconditions

  • Calendar is enabled (ENABLE_CALENDAR / calendar.enable, default True).
  • The attacker is a verified user (role user or admin) holding the calendar feature permission, which is granted to all users by default (USER_PERMISSIONS_FEATURES_CALENDAR, default True).
  • The event's start time falls inside the scheduler's one hour lookahead window, so the shared alert pass selects it.

No admin access, no shared calendar, no recurrence rule and no open registration are required, an invited account is enough. Deployments running with the calendar disabled, or with the calendar feature permission removed from regular users, are not affected.

Impact

Availability loss on one feature, affecting every user on the instance. While a single event carrying a non-numeric alert value sat in the upcoming window, the shared alert pass raised before emitting anything, so no user received calendar alerts and no event was recorded as alerted. The same events were selected again on the next poll, so the suppression lasted as long as the event stayed in the window, roughly one hour per event, and could be sustained by storing a new one. Every user on a default deployment holds the permission needed to do this.

Chat, timers, automations and the HTTP API kept working throughout, and authenticated calendar reads continued to succeed. There is no crash, no code execution, and no access to other users' data. Alerts resumed on their own once the event left the window or was deleted.

Fix

Fixed in open-webui/open-webui#28790, released in 0.11.1. The scheduler now treats any non-numeric alert value as unset and falls back to the default alert offset, so a stored text value can no longer interrupt the pass. Upgrading is sufficient and no configuration change is required. Events already holding a bad value simply revert to the default alert timing.

Root cause

Affected component: the upcoming-event lookup in the calendar event model, which the scheduler's alert pass calls every poll. Affected setup: every build carrying the calendar feature, which was introduced in 0.9.0.

Event meta is an untyped dictionary and was written to the database exactly as submitted, so nothing on the write path guaranteed that the alert offset was a number. The alert pass then read that value back and compared it numerically on the assumption that the write path had already constrained it, and the loop had no per-event error handling. Because a single background pass serves the whole instance rather than one user at a time, one unusable value from one user aborted the pass for everyone.

Proof of concept

Reported with a scripted reproduction against 0.11.0 (ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:latest) with the calendar enabled and two ordinary user accounts. The first account created an upcoming event with the alert offset stored as the text "5", the second created a normal upcoming event with a numeric offset. Across several scheduler polls the second user's event was never marked as alerted and no alert was delivered, while the server logged a type error from the alert pass on each poll. Health checks and authenticated calendar reads returned normally during the fault. After the first account's event was deleted, the second user's event was marked as alerted on the next poll and alerting resumed.

Credits

Binbin Xu​ of Tencent YUNDING LAB CodeBuddy Security.

References

@doge-woof doge-woof published to open-webui/open-webui Sep 4, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Sep 9, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 10, 2026
Reviewed Sep 10, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(19th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions

The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-87012

GHSA ID

GHSA-v39v-59xw-j98g

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.