Vulnerability Database

352,427

Total vulnerabilities in the database

axonflow-sdk-typescript: Webhook signing-key (HMAC-SHA256) not exposed by SDK type, preventing signature verification — @axonflow / sdk

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

Summary

The AxonFlow SDK's WebhookSubscription (or equivalent) type did not expose the HMAC-SHA256 signing key returned by the platform's CreateWebhook endpoint. Without access to the secret through the typed SDK API, callers had no path to verify the X-AxonFlow-Signature header on incoming webhook deliveries. Affected callers had two unsatisfactory options:

  1. Skip signature verification entirely — accepting any payload from any source that knew the webhook URL.
  2. Hand-parse the raw HTTP JSON response to extract the secret, bypassing the type-safe SDK surface.

This advisory is filed across all four AxonFlow SDKs (Go, Python, TypeScript, Java) because the same defect and the same fix landed in each.

Affected versions

Versions 5.6.0 and below.

Impact

A webhook receiver using the SDK's typed API to handle inbound deliveries had no path to authenticate the source of incoming payloads. An attacker who learned the webhook URL — through misconfiguration, log leakage, observable network traffic during setup, or any other discovery channel — could forge webhook deliveries indistinguishable from legitimate ones, causing the receiving application to act on fabricated events (e.g. simulated approval-granted callbacks, simulated policy-decision callbacks, simulated step-completion callbacks).

Remediation

Upgrade to the patched version listed in Vulnerabilities below. The signing key is now exposed on the WebhookSubscription response type returned by CreateWebhook. Implementations should:

  1. Persist the secret returned by CreateWebhook securely (it is only returned once, at create time).
  2. On each incoming webhook delivery, compute HMAC-SHA256(secret, raw_body) and compare it in constant time against the X-AxonFlow-Signature header.
  3. Reject any delivery whose signature does not match.

Credit

Identified by AxonFlow internal security review during the April 2026 quality-freeze epic.

  • Published: May 6, 2026
  • Updated: Jun 5, 2026
  • GHSA: GHSA-mph8-9v29-pm42
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 5.9
  • AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Frequently Asked Questions

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.