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.

357,869

Total vulnerabilities in the database

Better Auth has insecure cryptographic defaults in oidcProvider: alg=none advertised and plain PKCE accepted by default — better-auth

Insecure Default Initialization of Resource

Am I affected?

Users are affected if all of the following are true:

Their application uses better-auth at a version below the patched release.
Their application enables oidcProvider() from better-auth/plugins/oidc-provider or mcp() from better-auth/plugins/mcp (the mcp plugin delegates to oidcProvider and inherits both defaults).
For the algorithm-negotiation impact: relying parties of the application's OIDC server use a JWT verification library that performs algorithm negotiation from the discovery document without pinning to a specific signing algorithm.
For the PKCE impact: the authorization URL is exposed to any party other than the user agent and the application's OP.

If the application only uses @better-auth/oauth-provider (the canonical replacement) and have not enabled the legacy plugins, it is not affected. The new package's discovery document excludes none and its authorize schema rejects plain at parse time.

Fix:

Upgrade to [email protected] or later.
Migrate from the deprecated oidcProvider and mcp plugins to @better-auth/oauth-provider when feasible.
If developers cannot upgrade their applications, see workarounds below.

Summary

The legacy oidcProvider and mcp plugins exhibit two related defects in their OIDC discovery and authorize surfaces.

The discovery document advertises "none" in id_token_signing_alg_values_supported (and, for mcp, in resource_signing_alg_values_supported on the OAuth protected-resource metadata). Any relying party that performs algorithm negotiation from this metadata without pinning to a real signing algorithm may accept unsigned tokens.

PKCE plain is enabled by default. The runtime gate in the authorize handler accepts code_challenge_method=plain under this default, and a missing code_challenge_method parameter is silently downgraded to "plain" before the allowlist check. Discovery advertises code_challenge_methods_supported: ["S256"], contradicting the runtime acceptance of plain. RFC 9700 §2.1.1 (OAuth 2.1) explicitly forbids plain.

Details

The metadata builders unconditionally inject "none" into the alg list. The runtime authorize gate is structured so a buggy client that strips the code_challenge_method parameter still enters the plain code path because the handler rewrites the missing value to "plain" before the allowlist check fires.

@better-auth/oauth-provider (the deprecation target for oidcProvider) is not affected by either defect. The metadata builder uses a JWSAlgorithms type union that structurally excludes "none". The authorize schema is code_challenge_method: z.literal("S256").optional(), which rejects plain at parse time.

Patches

Fixed in [email protected]. The legacy oidcProvider and mcp plugins now:

Drop "none" from id_token_signing_alg_values_supported (both plugins) and from resource_signing_alg_values_supported (mcp). Discovery no longer advertises the unsigned-token option.
Default allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod to false. A request that explicitly passes code_challenge_method=plain is rejected with invalid_request unless the integrator opts in.
Reject a code_challenge without an accompanying code_challenge_method instead of silently rewriting the missing value to plain. Clients that send code_challenge must also send code_challenge_method=S256.

Discovery and runtime behavior align on S256 only by default.

Integrators who must keep plain PKCE for legacy clients can restore the previous shape with oidcProvider({ allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod: true }) (and likewise for mcp). With the opt-in set, a request that omits code_challenge_method is treated as plain again, preserving backwards compatibility while keeping the secure default for everyone else. Both legacy plugins are deprecated long-term; the recommended migration is @better-auth/oauth-provider, which never advertised none or accepted plain PKCE.

Workarounds

If developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately:

Disable plain PKCE explicitly: set oidcProvider({ allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod: false }) (and the equivalent on mcp). Closes the runtime acceptance of plain even though the silent downgrade still rewrites missing methods.
Override the metadata to drop "none" from id_token_signing_alg_values_supported. For oidcProvider, pass metadata: { id_token_signing_alg_values_supported: ["RS256"] }. For mcp, set the same on options.oidcConfig.metadata. Verify by curling the .well-known endpoint.
Migrate to @better-auth/oauth-provider: the package is the deprecation target and is unaffected by both defects.

Impact

Algorithm-negotiation downgrade: relying parties that read the discovery document without pinning may accept unsigned (alg: "none") tokens.
Authorization-code interception: PKCE plain does not protect the authorization code if the URL leaks (Referer headers, browser history, screen capture, proxy logs). PKCE S256 is what protects against that exposure; with plain the protection is absent.
OAuth 2.1 / RFC 9700 non-conformance: deployments shipping the defaults are non-compliant with current standards.

Credit

Reported by @subhanUmer.

Resources

Published: Jul 7, 2026
Updated: Jul 8, 2026
GHSA: GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4
Severity: High
Exploit:
CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

Severity: High
Score: 8.7
AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

CWEs:

OWASP TOP 10:

A3 - Sensitive Data Exposure

Affected Software
References

Software	From	Fixed in
better-auth	-	1.6.11

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.