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.

352,262

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-54351 — @budibase / server

Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes

Summary

The webhook trigger endpoint in Budibase is publicly accessible and passes the full HTTP request body into automation execution parameters. A mass assignment vulnerability in externalTrigger() allows an attacker to overwrite the internal appId property by including it in the webhook POST body. When the automation is processed asynchronously (the default path for webhooks without a collect step), the worker executes the attacker-defined automation in the context of the victim's workspace, granting full read/write access to the victim's database.

Details

The webhook trigger route is registered as a public endpoint with no authentication:

// packages/server/src/api/routes/webhook.ts:12
publicRoutes.post(&quot;/api/webhooks/trigger/:instance/:id&quot;, controller.trigger)

The controller passes the raw request body as fields alongside the server-derived appId:

// packages/server/src/api/controllers/webhook.ts:142-148
await triggers.externalTrigger(target, {
  fields: {
    ...ctx.request.body,  // attacker-controlled
    body: ctx.request.body,
  },
  appId: prodAppId,       // server-controlled
})

In externalTrigger(), for webhook-triggered automations, params.fields is spread back into params:

// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:237-241
params = {
  ...params,          // appId: prodAppId (server-controlled)
  ...params.fields,   // appId: VICTIM_ID (attacker-controlled, overwrites above)
  fields: {},
}

Because params.fields is spread after params, any key in the attacker's body overwrites the corresponding property in params. An attacker including "appId": "app_VICTIM_WORKSPACE_ID" in the POST body overwrites the legitimate, server-derived appId.

The contaminated params become data.event and are queued asynchronously:

// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:244,271
const data: AutomationData = { automation, event: params }
// ...
return quotas.addAction(() =&gt; automationQueue.add(data, JOB_OPTS))

The async worker uses job.data.event.appId to set the workspace context:

// packages/server/src/threads/automation.ts:917,929-930
const workspaceId = job.data.event.appId  // attacker-controlled
// ...
return await context.doInAutomationContext({
  workspaceId,  // victim&#039;s workspace
  automationId,
  task: async () =&gt; { /* automation steps run here */ }
})

The synchronous path (for webhooks with a collect step) correctly overwrites appId at triggers.ts:264:

data.event = {
  ...data.event,
  appId: context.getWorkspaceId(),  // server-controlled fix
  automation,
}

This proves the developers intended appId to be server-controlled but missed applying the same fix to the async path, which is the default for all webhooks without a collect step.

PoC

Prerequisites: Attacker has builder access to their own Budibase workspace and knows a victim workspace ID (format: app_<uuid>).

Step 1: Attacker creates an automation in their own workspace with a webhook trigger and data-exfiltration steps (e.g., Query Rows → Execute Script to send data externally).

Step 2: Attacker creates a webhook for that automation and notes the webhook URL:

POST /api/webhooks/trigger/&lt;ATTACKER_INSTANCE&gt;/&lt;WEBHOOK_ID&gt;

Step 3: Attacker triggers the webhook with the victim's workspace ID injected into the body:

curl -X POST https://budibase.example.com/api/webhooks/trigger/app_ATTACKER_ID/wh_WEBHOOK_ID \
  -H &#039;Content-Type: application/json&#039; \
  -d &#039;{&quot;appId&quot;: &quot;app_VICTIM_WORKSPACE_ID&quot;, &quot;normalData&quot;: &quot;test&quot;}&#039;

Expected result: The automation defined in the attacker's workspace executes in the context of the victim's workspace. All database operations (Query Rows, Create Row, Delete Row, Execute Script, etc.) operate on the victim's data.

Additional overridable fields via the same mechanism:

timeout (automation.ts:443-444): override automation execution timeout
user (automation.ts:413,435): set user context for automation steps
metadata.automationChainCount (automation.ts:293): bypass chain depth limits

Impact

An attacker with builder access to their own Budibase workspace can execute arbitrary automations (of their own design) in the context of any other workspace on the same Budibase instance, provided they know the victim's workspace ID. This enables:

Full data exfiltration: Query Rows steps read all tables in the victim's workspace
Data manipulation: Create Row, Update Row, Delete Row steps modify victim data
Arbitrary code execution in victim context: Execute Script steps run JavaScript with access to victim's environment variables and database
Cross-tenant boundary violation: In multi-tenant deployments (Budibase Cloud), the tenant ID is derived from the workspace ID, so the attack crosses tenant boundaries

The attack requires no authentication (the webhook endpoint is public) and leaves minimal audit trail since the automation execution is attributed to the attacker's automation definition but runs in the victim's context.

Recommended Fix

In packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts, apply the same appId fix that exists in the synchronous path to the async path as well. The fix should ensure appId is always server-controlled before queuing:

// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:244-272
const data: AutomationData = { automation, event: params }

// ... trigger filter check ...

+ // Ensure appId is always server-controlled, not user-supplied
+ data.event.appId = context.getWorkspaceId()

if (getResponses) {
  data.event = {
    ...data.event,
    appId: context.getWorkspaceId(),
    automation,
  }
  return quotas.addAction(() =&gt;
    executeInThread({ data } as AutomationJob, { onProgress })
  )
} else {
  return quotas.addAction(() =&gt; automationQueue.add(data, JOB_OPTS))
}

Alternatively, use an allowlist approach for the webhook field spread to prevent any internal property from being overwritten:

// packages/server/src/automations/triggers.ts:237-241
const { appId, timeout, user, metadata, ...safeFields } = params.fields
params = {
  ...params,
  ...safeFields,
  fields: {},
}

Published: Jun 22, 2026
Updated: Jun 23, 2026
CVE: CVE-2026-54351
GHSA: GHSA-rgvg-3wpc-h44p
Severity: High
Exploit:
CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

Severity: High
Score: 8.2
AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

CWEs:

CWE-915

Affected Software
References

Software	From	Fixed in
@budibase / server	-	3.39.9

https://github.com/Budibase/budibase/security/advisories/GHSA-rgvg-3wpc-h44p

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.