vulnerability / NVI-00008996 / Revision 3
Authlib RFC 7592 examples omit registration-access-token client binding
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for Authlib. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
8.8 high
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
0.274%
FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.19918. Missing scores are unknown.
As of · FIRST EPSS
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
Authlib
source listed>= 0.15, <= 1.9.0
## Description ### Summary RFC 7592 (OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol) lets a previously registered client read, update, or delete its own registration, authenticated by a `registration_access_token` issued specifically to that client at registration time. The entire security model of this protocol depends on the server verifying that the token presented in the request actually belongs to the client identified in the request, not merely that the token is valid for some client. Authlib's `ClientConfigurationEndpoint` implements the control flow correctly in structure, calling `authenticate_token`, then `authenticate_client`, then `check_permission`, and treats all three as abstract methods that "Developers MUST implement in subclass." The problem is that the documented example implementations for these methods, taken together exactly as written, never perform the one check that matters: binding the authenticated token to the specific client being accessed. A developer who implements these methods by following the provided examples ends up with a complete authorization bypass on this endpoint. ### Details `authenticate_client`'s documented example (`auth
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-c73q-w75p-j82v ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-116672 ↗
FIRST EPSS · official catalog
Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 3 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 2 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.