GHSA-4V2W-2WQP-MC85
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-29 17:46 – Updated: 2026-06-29 17:46Summary
Description
An Improper Authorization (CWE-285) issue in OpenAM's OAuth2 authorization-code grant allows a PKCE-protected authorization code to be redeemed without the required code_verifier. This affects OpenAM Community Edition through version 16.0.6 and was patched in version 16.1.1.
The authorize endpoint stores a code_challenge on the issued code, but the token endpoint only requires a code_verifier when the realm-wide codeVerifierEnforced setting is enabled, which ships disabled by default. With that setting off, the stored challenge is checked only if the caller supplies a verifier, so omitting the parameter skips PKCE verification entirely.
Impact
OpenAM Community Edition deployments through version 16.0.6 using the default OAuth2 provider configuration are potentially affected. For public clients, an attacker who intercepts an authorization code can exchange it for tokens without knowing the verifier. For confidential clients, the attacker additionally needs client authentication material or an execution context that can redeem the code. A token request supplying an incorrect verifier is still rejected. The bypass is specifically the missing-parameter path.
Patch
This has been patched in OpenAM Community Edition version 16.1.1. Users are encouraged to update to the latest release.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 16.0.6"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.openidentityplatform.openam:openam-oauth2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "16.1.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48717"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-29T17:46:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n**Description**\n\nAn Improper Authorization (CWE-285) issue in OpenAM\u0027s OAuth2 authorization-code grant allows a PKCE-protected authorization code to be redeemed without the required code_verifier. This affects OpenAM Community Edition through version 16.0.6 and was patched in version 16.1.1.\n\nThe authorize endpoint stores a code_challenge on the issued code, but the token endpoint only requires a code_verifier when the realm-wide codeVerifierEnforced setting is enabled, which ships disabled by default. With that setting off, the stored challenge is checked only if the caller supplies a verifier, so omitting the parameter skips PKCE verification entirely.\n\n## Impact\nOpenAM Community Edition deployments through version 16.0.6 using the default OAuth2 provider configuration are potentially affected. For public clients, an attacker who intercepts an authorization code can exchange it for tokens without knowing the verifier. For confidential clients, the attacker additionally needs client authentication material or an execution context that can redeem the code. A token request supplying an incorrect verifier is still rejected. The bypass is specifically the missing-parameter path.\n\n## Patch\nThis has been patched in OpenAM Community Edition version 16.1.1. Users are encouraged to update to the latest release.",
"id": "GHSA-4v2w-2wqp-mc85",
"modified": "2026-06-29T17:46:06Z",
"published": "2026-06-29T17:46:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OpenIdentityPlatform/OpenAM/security/advisories/GHSA-4v2w-2wqp-mc85"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/OpenIdentityPlatform/OpenAM"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenAM OAuth Authorization Bypass via PKCE Challenge"
}
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.
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…
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.
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.