FKIE_CVE-2026-67330
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-08-01 13:17 - Updated: 2026-10-23 23:10
Severity
Summary
@better-auth/scim (a better-auth plugin) versions >= 1.4.0-beta.27 through <= 1.6.21 and >= 1.7.0-beta.0 through <= 1.7.0-beta.9 contain an authorization bypass. SCIM token issuance did not reject provider IDs already used by existing SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social account providers, and the same logical provider ID was used for both SCIM provider configuration and account ownership. An authenticated user could mint a SCIM token whose provider ID collided with an existing provider namespace, causing SCIM user routes to resolve account rows the token never provisioned. This allowed listing, reading, updating (including rewriting global profile/email fields without uniqueness checks), and deleting global user accounts and sessions, resulting in account takeover and unauthorized deprovisioning. Fixed in 1.6.22 and 1.7.0-beta.10 (1.7.0-rc.0).
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageURL": "pkg:npm/%40better-auth/scim",
"product": "scim",
"vendor": "better-auth",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "*",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.4.0-beta.27",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageURL": "pkg:npm/%40better-auth/scim",
"product": "scim",
"vendor": "better-auth",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "*",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.7.0-beta.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "@better-auth/scim (a better-auth plugin) versions \u003e= 1.4.0-beta.27 through \u003c= 1.6.21 and \u003e= 1.7.0-beta.0 through \u003c= 1.7.0-beta.9 contain an authorization bypass. SCIM token issuance did not reject provider IDs already used by existing SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social account providers, and the same logical provider ID was used for both SCIM provider configuration and account ownership. An authenticated user could mint a SCIM token whose provider ID collided with an existing provider namespace, causing SCIM user routes to resolve account rows the token never provisioned. This allowed listing, reading, updating (including rewriting global profile/email fields without uniqueness checks), and deleting global user accounts and sessions, resulting in account takeover and unauthorized deprovisioning. Fixed in 1.6.22 and 1.7.0-beta.10 (1.7.0-rc.0)."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "Las versiones de @better-auth/scim (un plugin de better-auth) \u003e= 1.4.0-beta.27 hasta menor o igual que 1.6.21 y \u003e= 1.7.0-beta.0 hasta menor o igual que 1.7.0-beta.9 contienen un bypass de autorizaci\u00f3n. La emisi\u00f3n de tokens SCIM no rechazaba IDs de proveedor ya utilizados por proveedores de SSO, SAML, OIDC, OAuth gen\u00e9rico o cuentas sociales existentes, y el mismo ID de proveedor l\u00f3gico se utilizaba tanto para la configuraci\u00f3n del proveedor SCIM como para la propiedad de la cuenta. Un usuario autenticado pod\u00eda acu\u00f1ar un token SCIM cuyo ID de proveedor colisionaba con un espacio de nombres de proveedor existente, haciendo que las rutas de usuario SCIM resolvieran filas de cuentas que el token nunca aprovision\u00f3. Esto permit\u00eda listar, leer, actualizar (incluyendo la reescritura de campos globales de perfil/correo electr\u00f3nico sin verificaciones de unicidad), y eliminar cuentas de usuario y sesiones globales, lo que resultaba en la toma de control de cuentas (account takeover) y desaprovisionamiento no autorizado. Corregido en 1.6.22 y 1.7.0-beta.10 (1.7.0-rc.0)."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-67330",
"lastModified": "2026-10-23T23:10:00.157",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.9,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "CHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.1,
"impactScore": 6.0,
"source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"cvssMetricV40": [
{
"cvssData": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"baseScore": 9.4,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"subIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-67330",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-03T14:48:18.589429Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-08-01T13:17:03.677",
"references": [
{
"source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
"url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-rjg6-39jm-rgg4"
},
{
"source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/better-auth-scim-beta-27-through-account-takeover-via-provider-id-collision"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
"vulnStatus": "Deferred",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-20"
}
],
"source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.