Skip to content

Cloudreve: OAuth access tokens bypass scope enforcement due to missing client_id claim

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 8, 2026 in cloudreve/cloudreve • Updated Jul 20, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4 (Go)

Affected versions

>= 4.0.0-20260114075425-bc6845bd742c, < 4.0.0-20260606015557-ed20843dc3df

Patched versions

4.0.0-20260606015557-ed20843dc3df

Description

Summary

Cloudreve's OAuth access tokens can bypass OAuth scope enforcement.

This does not appear to be the intended design. The documentation describes OAuth client permissions/scopes, the API
has an insufficient-scope error code, and the code comments say RequiredScopes(...) should verify scopes when a
token has scopes, while skipping checks only for non-scoped session-based authentication.

However, OAuth access tokens are issued without the OAuth client_id claim. Later, the JWT verifier only loads scopes
into the request context when claims.ClientID != "". Because the OAuth access token has no client_id, its scopes
are not loaded, and RequiredScopes(...) treats the request like a non-scoped first-party/session token and skips
scope checks.

As a result, a low-scope OAuth access token, for example one granted only openid, can call APIs requiring higher
scopes such as file, share, workflow, user setting, WebDAV account, and potentially admin scopes when the authorizing
user is an administrator.

Why this seems unintended

Cloudreve appears to have an explicit OAuth scope model:

  1. The official docs describe OAuth client permissions/scopes and require the authorization request to include
    requested scopes.
  2. The API error code list includes an OAuth insufficient-scope error.
  3. RequiredScopes(...) is used across sensitive API groups such as files, shares, workflows, user settings, WebDAV
    devices, and admin APIs.
  4. The middleware comment says scope checks are skipped only when hasScopes is false, for example session-based
    authentication.
  5. Default OAuth clients created during migration explicitly list scopes such as Files.Write, Workflow.Write, and
    Shares.Write.

This suggests the intended design is:

  • First-party/session tokens may be non-scoped and skip OAuth scope checks.
  • OAuth access tokens should carry scope metadata and be checked against RequiredScopes(...).

The current implementation makes OAuth access tokens fall into the first category by mistake.

Affected code

In the OAuth authorization code exchange, Cloudreve passes both ClientID and Scopes into token issuance:

token, err := tokenAuth.Issue(c, &auth.IssueTokenArgs{
    User:               user,
    ClientID:           s.ClientID,
    Scopes:             authCode.Scopes,
    RefreshTTLOverride: refreshTTLOverride,
})

Location:

- service/oauth/oauth.go

In Issue(...), the access token includes Scopes but does not include ClientID:

accessToken, err := jwt.NewWithClaims(jwt.SigningMethodHS256, Claims{
    TokenType: TokenTypeAccess,
    RegisteredClaims: jwt.RegisteredClaims{
        Subject:   uidEncoded,
        NotBefore: jwt.NewNumericDate(issueDate),
        ExpiresAt: jwt.NewNumericDate(accessTokenExpired),
    },
    Scopes: args.Scopes,
}).SignedString(t.secret)

By contrast, the refresh token does include both:

Scopes:   args.Scopes,
ClientID: args.ClientID,

Location:

- pkg/auth/jwt.go

During request authentication, scopes are only inserted into request context if ClientID is present:

if claims.ClientID != "" {
    util.WithValue(c, ScopeContextKey{}, claims.Scopes)
}

Location:

- pkg/auth/jwt.go

Then CheckScope(...) skips scope enforcement if no scopes are present in context:

hasScopes, tokenScopes := GetScopesFromContext(c)
if !hasScopes {
    return nil
}

Location:

- pkg/auth/jwt.go

RequiredScopes(...) relies on this check:

if err := auth.CheckScope(c, requiredScopes...); err != nil {
    c.JSON(200, serializer.Err(c, err))
    c.Abort()
    return
}

Location:

- middleware/auth.go

Sensitive route groups protected by RequiredScopes(...) include:

- Files: Files.Read / Files.Write
- Shares: Shares.Read / Shares.Write
- Workflows: Workflow.Read / Workflow.Write
- User settings and security info
- WebDAV device/account management
- Admin APIs: Admin.Read / Admin.Write

Location:

- routers/router.go

## Reproduction steps

1. Create or use an OAuth client with a low-privilege scope, for example only openid.
2. Complete the OAuth authorization code flow for a normal user with:

scope=openid

3. Exchange the authorization code via:

POST /api/v4/session/oauth/token

4. Decode the returned access token.

Expected token metadata should preserve enough OAuth client/scope context for later enforcement.

Actual behavior:

- The access token contains the requested scopes.
- The access token does not contain client_id.

5. Use the returned token as a bearer token:

Authorization: Bearer <access_token>

6. Call an API that requires a scope not granted to the OAuth app, for example an endpoint requiring Files.Read,
   Files.Write, UserInfo.Write, or DavAccount.Write.

Expected result:

- The request should fail with an insufficient-scope error.

Actual result:

- The scope check is skipped because no scopes were inserted into the request context.
- The request is processed as that user.

If the authorizing user is an administrator, the same issue can affect admin APIs requiring Admin.Read or Admin.Write,
because the request still runs as the admin user and the admin identity check can pass while the OAuth scope check is
skipped.

## Impact

This is not an anonymous authentication bypass. The attacker still needs a valid OAuth access token for a real user.

The impact is an OAuth consent/scope boundary bypass:

- A third-party OAuth app can request a minimal scope such as openid.
- After the user authorizes it, the app receives an access token.
- That token can be used as a broader bearer token for the same user's Cloudreve account, despite not being granted
  the required scopes.

For normal users, this may allow access to or modification of files, shares, workflows, user settings, and WebDAV
account/device settings depending on available APIs.

For administrator users, it may allow access to admin-scoped functionality without the OAuth app being granted
Admin.Read or Admin.Write.

## Suggested fix

1. Include ClientID: args.ClientID in access token claims when issuing OAuth access tokens:

accessToken, err := jwt.NewWithClaims(jwt.SigningMethodHS256, Claims{
    TokenType: TokenTypeAccess,
    RegisteredClaims: jwt.RegisteredClaims{
        Subject:   uidEncoded,
        NotBefore: jwt.NewNumericDate(issueDate),
        ExpiresAt: jwt.NewNumericDate(accessTokenExpired),
    },
    Scopes:   args.Scopes,
    ClientID: args.ClientID,
}).SignedString(t.secret)

2. Consider making scope handling fail closed for OAuth tokens with malformed or inconsistent OAuth metadata.
3. Add regression tests for an OAuth access token granted only openid attempting to call APIs requiring:
    - Files.Read
    - Files.Write
    - UserInfo.Write
    - DavAccount.Write
    - Admin.Read
    - Admin.Write

Each should fail with an insufficient-scope error unless the corresponding scope was granted.
### References
- https://github.com/cloudreve/cloudreve/security/advisories/GHSA-vgj4-345g-jcf8
- https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54560
- https://github.com/cloudreve/cloudreve/commit/ed20843dc3df20a25fcaf6b538647e11c4d68d87
- https://github.com/cloudreve/cloudreve/releases/tag/4.16.1
@HFO4 HFO4 published to cloudreve/cloudreve Jul 8, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 15, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 20, 2026
Reviewed Jul 20, 2026
Last updated Jul 20, 2026

Severity

High

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
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
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:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
(16th percentile)

Weaknesses

Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-54560

GHSA ID

GHSA-vgj4-345g-jcf8

Source code

Credits

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