CVE Intelligence
Medium Cross-site scripting

CVE-2026-49264 — OAuthLib: Unsafe JSONP callback injection in RevocationEndpoint allows arbitrary JavaScript response generation

OAuthLib is an implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic for Python 3.6+. From 0.6.1 until 4.0.0, OAuthLib's RevocationEndpoint in oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/endpoints/revocation.py reflects an unvalidated callback request parameter into success and error response bodies when enable_jsonp=True. The callback can come from the query string or request body and is used without restricting it to a legal JavaScript function name. A browser application that loads the revocation response as trusted JSONP and permits attacker influence over callback can therefore execute attacker-controlled JavaScript in the including application's origin, with access to its DOM and script-accessible data. The feature is disabled by default, so only deployments that explicitly enable JSONP are affected. This issue is fixed in version 4.0.0.

Published Oct 13, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.31%
ahead of 23% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Oauthlib
Oauthlib
CVSS base
6.1
Medium · 2 source(s)

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Oauthlib Oauthlib).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cross-site scripting), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Oauthlib Oauthlib version >= 0.6.1, < 4.0.0 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
6.1 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 2.7 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.1 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-79 · Cross-site Scripting (XSS)

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Monitor CSP violation reports and script payloads in reflected parameters.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · oauthlib/oauthlib
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 6.1
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Received
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Oct 13, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Oauthlib
every CVE for this vendor
Cross-site scripting
same class
CWE-79
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-49265 OAuthLib: Timing Attack Vulnerability in PKCE code_verifier Comparison 2d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No CISA SSVC assessment.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-49264 is "OAuthLib: Unsafe JSONP callback injection in RevocationEndpoint allows arbitrary JavaScript response generation", rated Medium. It affects Oauthlib (Oauthlib); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.31% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.