How should we interpret CVSS severity scores?

CVSS estimates technical severity, but it does not automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, asset criticality, known exploitation, and whether compensating controls exist. A Medium CVSS on an exposed production system can be more urgent than a Critical on an isolated non-production host.

Vulnerability Database

Q: What is a Vulnerability (CVE) and why does it matter?

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

Q: What's the difference between a vulnerability, an exploit, and a zero-day?

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. Risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Q: Why do vulnerabilities keep reappearing in our environment?

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete asset discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host.

Q: How do we prioritize remediation without burning out the team?

Use a repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress so remediation is steady, not reactive.

Q: How can SynScan help reduce vulnerability risk over time?

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.

363,159

Total vulnerabilities in the database

@better-auth/scim: account takeover and stale access via SCIM provider-id collision — @better-auth / scim

Improper Input Validation

Am I affected?

You are affected if your application registers the @better-auth/scim plugin and lets authenticated users generate SCIM tokens. The default canGenerateToken policy was affected, and custom policies were affected when they did not reject provider IDs already used by other account providers. The provider-ID collision issue additionally requires SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social providers whose account rows use custom provider IDs, plus existing account rows under those IDs.

The deprovisioning and email-update issues require only the SCIM plugin and a valid SCIM bearer token. Published versions from @better-auth/[email protected] through 1.6.21 are affected. Beta versions from 1.7.0-beta.0 through 1.7.0-beta.9 are affected. Upgrade to @better-auth/[email protected] or 1.7.0-beta.10.

Summary

@better-auth/scim used the same logical provider ID for SCIM provider configuration and account ownership. SCIM token issuance did not reject all account-provider namespaces. An authenticated user could therefore mint a SCIM token whose provider ID matched an existing SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social provider. SCIM user routes then selected account rows by that provider ID and treated those users as SCIM-managed, even when the SCIM token had never provisioned them.

The same write path had 2 additional validation issues. First, SCIM active: false was not modeled, so identity providers could receive a successful response while the user stayed active. Second, SCIM PUT and PATCH updates changed global email addresses without the same uniqueness check used by create, and emailVerified stayed unchanged after an email reassignment.

Details

The SCIM bearer middleware decoded the provider ID from the bearer token and loaded the matching scimProvider row. User listing and user lookup then queried ordinary account rows by account.providerId. This made the provider ID a user-controlled authorization key. If a SCIM token used a provider ID that belonged to SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or another account provider, the SCIM routes could resolve users that the token did not own.

The highest-impact path was non-organization deletion. On affected versions, DELETE /scim/v2/Users/:id for a non-organization SCIM token deleted the global Better Auth user and their sessions after resolving the user through the colliding provider ID. A low-privileged authenticated user could therefore delete users associated with a colliding provider namespace.

Organization-scoped tokens were also affected by the provider-ID collision. If the colliding provider ID matched the organization's SSO or OIDC connection, SCIM PUT or PATCH could resolve an SSO-provisioned organization member and rewrite global profile fields. Before the patch, changing a user's email through SCIM skipped the uniqueness check and left emailVerified unchanged.

SCIM deactivation had a separate failure mode. The SCIM active attribute was missing from the user schemas and PATCH mapping, so active: false was stripped from requests. A standard identity-provider deactivation signal could return success while the user kept their identity, sessions, and access.

Patches

Fixed in @better-auth/[email protected] and @better-auth/[email protected].

The patch rejects SCIM provider IDs that collide with built-in providers, configured social providers, generic OAuth providers, and SSO provider rows before a token is minted. It also scopes SCIM deletion to the SCIM account link when the user has other identities. The global user is deleted only when the SCIM account is the user's sole linked account.

The patch models the SCIM active attribute. App-level SCIM deactivation maps active: false to the admin plugin's enforced disabled-user state and revokes sessions. If the admin plugin is absent, the request is rejected instead of being silently dropped.

The patch adds the email uniqueness check to SCIM PUT and PATCH updates and resets emailVerified whenever SCIM changes a user's email.

Workarounds

If you cannot upgrade immediately, configure canGenerateToken to reject provider IDs that match any account provider ID used by your application. Include built-in providers, social providers, generic OAuth providers, SSO, SAML, and OIDC provider IDs. Also restrict which users can generate SCIM tokens.

Do not rely on deactivation reports from your identity provider until you have upgraded. Confirm that deactivated users have actually lost access, especially if your identity provider deprovisions through active: false.

If you use SCIM account linking, avoid broad domain-based linking rules. A shared email domain is not proof that a SCIM token may manage a pre-existing user. Prefer organization-membership checks or an explicit application predicate.

Audit existing scimProvider rows and remove any row whose providerId matches another account provider namespace.

Impact

With the provider-ID collision issue, an authenticated attacker could act through a provider namespace they did not own. They could list and read SCIM user resources for users linked to the colliding provider. They could also update profile and account fields and delete global user records on the non-organization path. In organization-scoped deployments, a colliding token could mutate global profile fields for SSO-provisioned organization members.

With the deactivation issue, a terminated user could remain active after an identity provider reported successful deprovisioning through active: false. With the email-update issue, SCIM could assign one user's email to another user on adapters without an enforced unique index. That could corrupt email-keyed login and lookup, while SQL adapters could raise an unhandled adapter error.

Credit

Found through internal validation.

Published: Jul 24, 2026
Updated: Jul 25, 2026
GHSA: GHSA-rjg6-39jm-rgg4
Severity: Critical
Exploit:
CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

Severity: Critical
Score: 9.9
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

CWEs:

OWASP TOP 10:

A5 - Broken Access Control

Affected Software
References

Software	From	Fixed in
@better-auth / scim	1.4.0-beta.27	1.6.22
@better-auth / scim	1.7.0-beta.0	1.7.0-beta.10

Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity

SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.

No setup fees
5-min deployment
Cancel anytime

Book a Demo

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Vulnerability (CVE) and why does it matter?

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.