Vulnerability Database

408,059

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-49272 — oauthlib

Improper Authentication

Summary

A call to the token endpoint with a grant type of "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:device_code" and a bogus device_code is able to get a bearer token as long as they know a valid client ID enabled for the device workflow.

Details

Section 3.4 of the RFC 8628 spec says that the token endpoint should take in device_code as a required parameter.DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request does not perform any validation of device_code. DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request should be validating that device_code was passed in as a parameter and that it is valid, similar to how AuthorizationCodeGrant.validate_token_request does the checks here and here.

I would like to propose a new method be added to RequestValidator called validate_device_code that is similar to the validate_code method and is called inside of DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request.

PoC

Create an implementation of RequestValidation.authenticate_client that returns True if the client's client_type is "public". You would find yourself in this scenario because there's another issue with DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request where it doesn't properly handle public clients (see https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/issues/919).

Create a client that has a client_type of "public" and set it's grant_type to "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:device_code".

With this implementation of RequestValidation.authenticate_client done, use that validator for your token endpoint. Call the token endpoint with a body of

{ "client_id": <ID of the public client you made>, "grant_type": "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:device_code", "device_code": <anything you want since it's not validated> }

You now have a bearer token for the client without a valid device_code.

Impact

Anyone using the RFC 8628 device workflow in oauthlib that doesn't realize the device_code parameter is not being validated.

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: High
  • Score: 8.5
  • AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N

Is CVE-2026-49272 exposed on your perimeter?

A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.

What is attack surface management? →

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.