CVE-2026-54605
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Cross-origin OAuth token-request redirects can expose signed request metadata
Summary
When an application uses OAuth::Consumer to request OAuth 1.0 request tokens or
access tokens, the token request helper follows 300..399 redirects returned by
the OAuth server. In affected versions, OAuth::Consumer#token_request parses the
raw Location header, follows the redirect recursively, and can mutate the
consumer's configured site when the redirect points to a different host with
the same path.
The result is a cross-origin signed-request disclosure primitive: if an OAuth server token endpoint returns a redirect whose target an attacker controls, the client can re-sign the token request and send OAuth 1.0 request metadata, including the OAuth signature, nonce, timestamp, consumer key, and any request parameters included in the signature base string, to the attacker-controlled host. The same behavior can also be used as an SSRF or confused-deputy primitive because the application server follows the redirect and sends the next request from its own network position.
Affected
oauthv1.1.5 and prior versions back to and including v0.5.5.- The cross-host token redirect behavior was introduced by https://github.com/ruby-oauth/oauth/commit/d74b767f
- The behavior is documented in the v0.5.5 changelog as "Allow redirect to different host but same path".
- The vulnerable behavior is in
OAuth::Consumer#token_request, which is used by the documented request-token and access-token flows. - The issue is not specific to a Ruby engine or platform. It is caused by the gem's redirect handling and recursive token request behavior.
Patched version: oauth v1.1.6.
Impact
A consumer that calls OAuth::Consumer#get_request_token,
OAuth::Consumer#get_access_token, or lower-level token request helpers against
an OAuth server whose token endpoint redirect target can be influenced may lose
three security properties:
- Cross-origin signed-request metadata disclosure. The redirected request is
signed for the attacker-controlled endpoint. Depending on the request method,
scheme, and parameters, the attacker may receive OAuth 1.0 parameters such as
oauth_consumer_key,oauth_signature_method,oauth_timestamp,oauth_nonce,oauth_version, andoauth_signature. - SSRF from the application server. The OAuth client follows the redirect on behalf of the application, so the redirected host is contacted from the application server's network position.
- Confused-deputy behavior. A malicious or compromised token endpoint can cause an otherwise trusted application to initiate signed requests to an unintended origin.
The disclosed OAuth 1 signature is not equivalent to an OAuth 2 bearer token: it is bound to the signed request, timestamp, nonce, HTTP method, and request URL. However, it can still disclose sensitive integration metadata, may be replayable within the receiver's accepted nonce/timestamp window in some deployments, and can expose application-server reachability to attacker-selected hosts.
Vulnerable code
lib/oauth/consumer.rb
at tag v1.1.5:
def token_request(http_method, path, token = nil, request_options = {}, *arguments)
request_options[:token_request] ||= true
response = request(http_method, path, token, request_options, *arguments)
case response.code.to_i
when (200..299)
# parse token response
when (300..399)
# Parse redirect to follow
uri = URI.parse(response["location"])
our_uri = URI.parse(site)
# Guard against infinite redirects
response.error! if uri.path == path && our_uri.host == uri.host
if uri.path == path && our_uri.host != uri.host
options[:site] = "#{uri.scheme}://#{uri.host}"
@http = create_http
end
token_request(http_method, uri.path, token, request_options, arguments)
when (400..499)
raise OAuth::Unauthorized, response
else
response.error!
end
end
The vulnerable behavior has several parts:
response["location"]is trusted as the next token request target.- Redirects are followed for every
300..399response. - There is no general redirect counter or maximum redirect limit.
- Cross-host redirects with the same path can mutate
options[:site]and rebuild the underlying HTTP client. - The recursive call continues the token request flow and signs the next request for the redirected destination.
Reachable in production
The vulnerable path is reachable through the normal OAuth 1 token exchange:
consumer = OAuth::Consumer.new(
consumer_key,
consumer_secret,
site: "https://provider.example"
)
request_token = consumer.get_request_token
If https://provider.example/oauth/request_token returns a redirect to an
attacker-controlled host, the library follows that redirect as part of the token
request flow. A realistic trigger is an OAuth provider, gateway, or reverse proxy
that emits Location based on user-controlled or tenant-controlled input, or a
malicious tenant-controlled OAuth endpoint in a multi-tenant integration.
No application-level redirect handling is required. The redirect is followed inside the gem before the application receives the token response.
Reproduction
A vulnerable application is one that uses OAuth::Consumer to perform an OAuth
1 token exchange against a token endpoint that can be made to return a redirect
to another origin.
Example shape:
consumer = OAuth::Consumer.new(
consumer_key,
consumer_secret,
site: "https://provider.example"
)
consumer.get_request_token
If https://provider.example/oauth/request_token responds with a 30x redirect
whose Location points to https://attacker.example/..., affected versions may
follow that redirect as part of the token request flow. The redirected request is
then generated and signed by the application server for the new destination.
Depending on the configured OAuth request scheme, OAuth 1 parameters may be sent
in the Authorization header, request body, or query string.
Expected vulnerable behavior:
- the token request leaves the configured OAuth provider origin;
- the redirected host receives a signed OAuth 1 token request;
- the application does not get a chance to inspect or approve the redirect target before the redirected request is sent.
Expected patched behavior:
- same-origin redirects continue to work, subject to a redirect limit;
- cross-origin token endpoint redirects are rejected by default;
- applications that intentionally require cross-origin token redirects must opt
in explicitly with
token_request_cross_origin_redirects.
Suggested fix
Reject cross-origin token endpoint redirects by default and require explicit opt-in for integrations that intentionally depend on that behavior.
The fix released in v1.1.6 does the following:
current_uri = token_request_uri(path)
redirected_uri = token_request_redirect_uri(current_uri, response)
response.error! unless redirected_uri
redirect_count = request_options[:token_request_redirect_count].to_i + 1
response.error! if redirect_count > token_request_max_redirects(request_options)
response.error! if token_request_cross_origin?(current_uri, redirected_uri) &&
!token_request_cross_origin_redirects?(request_options)
redirect_options = request_options.merge(token_request_redirect_count: redirect_count)
token_request(http_method, token_request_redirect_path(current_uri, redirected_uri), token, redirect_options, *arguments, &block)
The fix intentionally preserves same-origin redirect compatibility while making
cross-origin token endpoint redirects an explicit choice. It also avoids placing
internal redirect state in request_options passed to OAuth signing.
Workarounds
Until a patched release is available, applications can reduce exposure by doing one or more of the following:
- Ensure configured OAuth token endpoints are fixed absolute URLs controlled by a trusted provider.
- Do not use tenant-controlled OAuth token endpoint URLs unless the tenant is trusted to receive signed OAuth token requests.
- Block outbound application-server traffic to internal metadata services and other sensitive internal addresses at the network layer.
- Place a trusted proxy in front of OAuth providers that rejects token endpoint redirects to a different origin.
These mitigations reduce exploitability but do not remove the vulnerable redirect logic from the gem.
Credit
Found during the follow-up audit for GHSA-pp92-crg2-gfv9.
Reporter/coordinator: Peter H. Boling (pboling).
References
- Related OAuth 2 advisory: https://github.com/ruby-oauth/oauth2/security/advisories/GHSA-pp92-crg2-gfv9
- Fixed version:
oauthv1.1.6 - Behavior-introducing commit: https://github.com/ruby-oauth/oauth/commit/d74b767f
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
7.2high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| oauth | gem | - | - | >=0.5.5,<=1.1.5 | 1.1.6 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Debian
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AlowUbuntu
-