CVE Intelligence
Critical Authentication

CVE-2026-49757 — OAuth2/OIDC account takeover in AshAuthentication via email-based user matching

Authentication Bypass by Spoofing vulnerability in team-alembic AshAuthentication allows account takeover of local users via OAuth2/OIDC sign-in. AshAuthentication's OAuth2 and OIDC family strategies matched the local user by email address (an upsert on the email field, or a user-defined sign-in filter) rather than by the OpenID Connect iss/sub claim combination. Per OpenID Connect Core §5.7, only iss/sub uniquely and stably identifies an end-user; other claims, including email, MUST NOT be used as unique identifiers. A provider login presenting a victim's email, including an unverified email, a reused email, or an account with email_verified: false, resolved to and signed in as the victim's existing local account. An unauthenticated attacker who can register an account on any accepted OAuth provider with the victim's email (or who benefits from provider-side email reuse or reclamation) obtains the victim's full local privileges. The fix resolves users by the (strategy, sub) identity stored in a user identity resource, and only links a new sub to an existing local account by email when the provider's email_verified claim is trusted (trust_email_verified?). This issue affects ash_authentication from 0.1.0 before 4.14.0 and from 5.0.0-rc.0 before 5.0.0-rc.10.

Published Jun 15, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: EEF

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 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
  • Technical severity (critical)+10
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+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
0.68%
ahead of 51% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Team-alembic
Ash Authentication
CVSS base
9.2
Critical · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

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 (Team-alembic Ash Authentication).
  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. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (authentication), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Team-alembic Ash Authentication ≥ 0.1.0 and < 4.14.0≥ 5.0.0-rc.0 and < 5.0.0-rc.10≥ c5f589058e04239263f50a1430eb17ea6d5dd1a2 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
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
9.2 CVSS 4.0 Critical — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.2 CVSS 4.0 Critical — — EEF via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X (score shown at the top: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-290 · Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.68%

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).
  • Review authentication logs: logins without MFA, anomalous sessions and recently created accounts.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSauthentication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · team-alembic/ash authentication
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 9.2
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jun 15, 2026 · EEF

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

5 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Team-alembic
every CVE for this vendor
Authentication
same class
CWE-290
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-86688 Session id is not renewed on authentication in ash_authentication, allowing session fixation 28d
  • CVE-2026-76949 Remember-me sign-in guard reads a session key that is never written in ash_authentication, allowing session replacement 28d
  • CVE-2026-91039 dynamic_oidc identities are not namespaced by connection in ash_authentication, allowing cross-connection account takeover 28d
  • CVE-2026-88952 OAuth2 sign-in attached to an existing account without an email comparison in AshAuthentication 28d
  • CVE-2026-86533 Revoked session accepted because the session jti is never checked in AshAuthentication and AshAuthentication Phoenix 28d
  • CVE-2026-85500 `require_confirmed_with` is not enforced on the action and fails open on an unreadable attribute in AshAuthentication 28d

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 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-2026-49757 is "OAuth2/OIDC account takeover in AshAuthentication via email-based user matching", rated Critical. It affects Ash Authentication (Team-alembic); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.2 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.68% 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.