Know every vulnerabilitybefore it knows you.
DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.
GHSA-9q5m-jfc4-wc92
No affected components available
Summary
All three OAuth service implementations (GenericOAuthService, GithubOAuthService, GoogleOAuthService) store PKCE verifiers and access tokens as mutable struct fields on singleton instances shared across all concurrent requests. When two users initiate OAuth login for the same provider concurrently, a race condition between VerifyCode() and Userinfo() causes one user to receive a session with the other user's identity.
Details
The OAuthBrokerService.GetService() returns a single shared instance per provider for every request. The OAuth flow stores intermediate state as struct fields on this singleton:
Token storage — generic_oauth_service.go line 96:
generic.token = token // Shared mutable field on singleton
Verifier storage — generic_oauth_service.go line 81:
generic.verifier = verifier // Shared mutable field on singleton
In the callback handler oauth_controller.go lines 136–143, the code calls:
err = service.VerifyCode(code) // line 136 — stores token on singleton
// ... race window ...
user, err := controller.broker.GetUser(req.Provider) // line 143 — reads token from singleton
Between these two calls, a concurrent request's VerifyCode() can overwrite the token field, causing GetUser() → Userinfo() to fetch the wrong user's identity claims.
The same pattern exists in all three implementations:
PoC
Race scenario (two concurrent OAuth callbacks):
- User A and User B both click "Login with GitHub" on the same tinyauth instance
- Both are redirected to GitHub, authorize, and GitHub redirects both back with authorization codes
- Both callbacks arrive at tinyauth nearly simultaneously:
Timeline:
t0: Request A → service.VerifyCode(codeA) → singleton.token = tokenA
t1: Request B → service.VerifyCode(codeB) → singleton.token = tokenB (overwrites tokenA)
t2: Request A → broker.GetUser("github") → Userinfo() reads singleton.token = tokenB
t3: Request A receives User B's identity (email, name, groups)
User A now has a tinyauth session with User B's email, gaining access to all resources User B is authorized for via tinyauth's ACL.
PKCE verifier DoS variant: Even with PKCE, concurrent oauthURLHandler calls overwrite the verifier field, causing VerifyCode() to send the wrong verifier to the OAuth provider, which rejects the exchange.
Static verification: Run Go's race detector on a test that calls VerifyCode and Userinfo concurrently on the same service instance — the -race flag will flag data races on the token and verifier fields.
Go race detector confirmation: Running a concurrent test with go test -race on the singleton service detects 4 data races on the token and verifier fields. Without the race detector, measured token overwrite rate is 99.9% (9,985/10,000 iterations).
Test environment: tinyauth v5.0.4, commit 592b7ded, Go race detector + source code analysis
Impact
An attacker who times their OAuth callback to race with a victim's callback can obtain a tinyauth session with the victim's identity. This grants unauthorized access to all resources the victim is permitted to access through tinyauth's ACL system. The probability of collision increases with concurrent OAuth traffic.
The PKCE verifier overwrite additionally causes a denial-of-service: concurrent OAuth logins for the same provider reliably fail.
Suggested Fix
Pass verifier and token through method parameters or return values instead of storing them on the singleton:
func (generic *GenericOAuthService) VerifyCode(code string, verifier string) (*oauth2.Token, error) {
return generic.config.Exchange(generic.context, code, oauth2.VerifierOption(verifier))
}
func (generic *GenericOAuthService) Userinfo(token *oauth2.Token) (config.Claims, error) {
client := generic.config.Client(generic.context, token)
// ...
}
Store the PKCE verifier in the session/cookie associated with the OAuth state parameter, not on the service struct.
The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is difficult for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability and may require special conditions. An attacker needs basic access or low-level privileges. The attacker needs the user to perform some action, like clicking a link. The vulnerability can affect other systems as well, not just the initial system. There is a high impact on the confidentiality of the information. There is a high impact on the integrity of the data.
Exploitation activity has been observed. Apply available patches or mitigations urgently.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard