CVE-2026-67330 (GCVE-0-2026-67330)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-01 12:22 – Updated: 2026-08-03 15:38
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
better-auth SCIM 1.4.0-beta.27 through 1.6.21 Account Takeover via Provider-ID Collision
Summary
@better-auth/scim (a better-auth plugin) versions >= 1.4.0-beta.27 through <= 1.6.21 and >= 1.7.0-beta.0 through <= 1.7.0-beta.9 contain an authorization bypass. SCIM token issuance did not reject provider IDs already used by existing SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social account providers, and the same logical provider ID was used for both SCIM provider configuration and account ownership. An authenticated user could mint a SCIM token whose provider ID collided with an existing provider namespace, causing SCIM user routes to resolve account rows the token never provisioned. This allowed listing, reading, updating (including rewriting global profile/email fields without uniqueness checks), and deleting global user accounts and sessions, resulting in account takeover and unauthorized deprovisioning. Fixed in 1.6.22 and 1.7.0-beta.10 (1.7.0-rc.0).
Severity
9.9 (Critical)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/securi… | vendor-advisory |
| https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/better-auth-… | third-party-advisory |
Impacted products
2 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| better-auth | scim |
Affected:
1.4.0-beta.27 , < *
(semver)
|
|
| better-auth | scim |
Affected:
1.7.0-beta.0 , < *
(semver)
|
Date Public
2026-06-26 00:00
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-67330",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-03T14:48:18.589429Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-03T15:38:15.885Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageURL": "pkg:npm/better-auth/scim",
"product": "scim",
"vendor": "better-auth",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "*",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.4.0-beta.27",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageURL": "pkg:npm/better-auth/scim",
"product": "scim",
"vendor": "better-auth",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "*",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.7.0-beta.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-06-26T00:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "@better-auth/scim (a better-auth plugin) versions \u003e= 1.4.0-beta.27 through \u003c= 1.6.21 and \u003e= 1.7.0-beta.0 through \u003c= 1.7.0-beta.9 contain an authorization bypass. SCIM token issuance did not reject provider IDs already used by existing SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social account providers, and the same logical provider ID was used for both SCIM provider configuration and account ownership. An authenticated user could mint a SCIM token whose provider ID collided with an existing provider namespace, causing SCIM user routes to resolve account rows the token never provisioned. This allowed listing, reading, updating (including rewriting global profile/email fields without uniqueness checks), and deleting global user accounts and sessions, resulting in account takeover and unauthorized deprovisioning. Fixed in 1.6.22 and 1.7.0-beta.10 (1.7.0-rc.0)."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 9.4,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"subIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH"
},
"format": "CVSS"
},
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.9,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "CHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS"
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-01T12:22:16.804Z",
"orgId": "83251b91-4cc7-4094-a5c7-464a1b83ea10",
"shortName": "VulnCheck"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-rjg6-39jm-rgg4)",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-rjg6-39jm-rgg4"
},
{
"name": "VulnCheck Advisory: better-auth SCIM 1.4.0-beta.27 through 1.6.21 Account Takeover via Provider-ID Collision",
"tags": [
"third-party-advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/better-auth-scim-beta-27-through-account-takeover-via-provider-id-collision"
}
],
"title": "better-auth SCIM 1.4.0-beta.27 through 1.6.21 Account Takeover via Provider-ID Collision",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "vulncheck-endgame"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "83251b91-4cc7-4094-a5c7-464a1b83ea10",
"assignerShortName": "VulnCheck",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-67330",
"datePublished": "2026-08-01T12:22:16.804Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-07-29T13:07:47.015Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-03T15:38:15.885Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2026-67330",
"date": "2026-08-03",
"epss": "0.00352",
"percentile": "0.27885"
},
"nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-67330\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"disclosure@vulncheck.com\",\"published\":\"2026-08-01T13:17:03.677\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-08-03T17:16:41.680\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Received\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"@better-auth/scim (a better-auth plugin) versions \u003e= 1.4.0-beta.27 through \u003c= 1.6.21 and \u003e= 1.7.0-beta.0 through \u003c= 1.7.0-beta.9 contain an authorization bypass. SCIM token issuance did not reject provider IDs already used by existing SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social account providers, and the same logical provider ID was used for both SCIM provider configuration and account ownership. An authenticated user could mint a SCIM token whose provider ID collided with an existing provider namespace, causing SCIM user routes to resolve account rows the token never provisioned. This allowed listing, reading, updating (including rewriting global profile/email fields without uniqueness checks), and deleting global user accounts and sessions, resulting in account takeover and unauthorized deprovisioning. Fixed in 1.6.22 and 1.7.0-beta.10 (1.7.0-rc.0).\"}],\"affected\":[{\"source\":\"disclosure@vulncheck.com\",\"affectedData\":[{\"vendor\":\"better-auth\",\"product\":\"scim\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"packageURL\":\"pkg:npm/better-auth/scim\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"1.4.0-beta.27\",\"lessThan\":\"*\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]},{\"vendor\":\"better-auth\",\"product\":\"scim\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"packageURL\":\"pkg:npm/better-auth/scim\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"1.7.0-beta.0\",\"lessThan\":\"*\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]}]}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV40\":[{\"source\":\"disclosure@vulncheck.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"4.0\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X\",\"baseScore\":9.4,\"baseSeverity\":\"CRITICAL\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"attackRequirements\":\"NONE\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"LOW\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"vulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"vulnIntegrityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"vulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"subConfidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"subIntegrityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"subAvailabilityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"exploitMaturity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"confidentialityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"integrityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"availabilityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackVector\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackComplexity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackRequirements\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedPrivilegesRequired\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedUserInteraction\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Safety\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Automatable\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Recovery\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"valueDensity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"providerUrgency\":\"NOT_DEFINED\"}}],\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"disclosure@vulncheck.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H\",\"baseScore\":9.9,\"baseSeverity\":\"CRITICAL\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"LOW\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"CHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"integrityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"HIGH\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":3.1,\"impactScore\":6.0}],\"ssvcV203\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"ssvcData\":{\"timestamp\":\"2026-08-03T14:48:18.589429Z\",\"id\":\"CVE-2026-67330\",\"options\":[{\"exploitation\":\"none\"},{\"automatable\":\"no\"},{\"technicalImpact\":\"total\"}],\"role\":\"CISA Coordinator\",\"version\":\"2.0.3\"}}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"disclosure@vulncheck.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-20\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-rjg6-39jm-rgg4\",\"source\":\"disclosure@vulncheck.com\"},{\"url\":\"https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/better-auth-scim-beta-27-through-account-takeover-via-provider-id-collision\",\"source\":\"disclosure@vulncheck.com\"}]}}",
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-67330\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"total\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-08-03T14:48:18.589429Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-03T14:48:19.845Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"better-auth SCIM 1.4.0-beta.27 through 1.6.21 Account Takeover via Provider-ID Collision\", \"metrics\": [{\"format\": \"CVSS\", \"cvssV4_0\": {\"version\": \"4.0\", \"baseScore\": 9.4, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"CRITICAL\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"attackRequirements\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"LOW\", \"subIntegrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"vulnIntegrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"subAvailabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"vulnAvailabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"subConfidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"vulnConfidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}, {\"format\": \"CVSS\", \"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"CHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 9.9, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"CRITICAL\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H\", \"integrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"LOW\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"better-auth\", \"product\": \"scim\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"1.4.0-beta.27\", \"lessThan\": \"*\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"packageURL\": \"pkg:npm/better-auth/scim\", \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}, {\"vendor\": \"better-auth\", \"product\": \"scim\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"1.7.0-beta.0\", \"lessThan\": \"*\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"packageURL\": \"pkg:npm/better-auth/scim\", \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"datePublic\": \"2026-06-26T00:00:00.000Z\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-rjg6-39jm-rgg4\", \"name\": \"GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-rjg6-39jm-rgg4)\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/better-auth-scim-beta-27-through-account-takeover-via-provider-id-collision\", \"name\": \"VulnCheck Advisory: better-auth SCIM 1.4.0-beta.27 through 1.6.21 Account Takeover via Provider-ID Collision\", \"tags\": [\"third-party-advisory\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"vulncheck-endgame\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"@better-auth/scim (a better-auth plugin) versions \u003e= 1.4.0-beta.27 through \u003c= 1.6.21 and \u003e= 1.7.0-beta.0 through \u003c= 1.7.0-beta.9 contain an authorization bypass. SCIM token issuance did not reject provider IDs already used by existing SSO, SAML, OIDC, generic OAuth, or social account providers, and the same logical provider ID was used for both SCIM provider configuration and account ownership. An authenticated user could mint a SCIM token whose provider ID collided with an existing provider namespace, causing SCIM user routes to resolve account rows the token never provisioned. This allowed listing, reading, updating (including rewriting global profile/email fields without uniqueness checks), and deleting global user accounts and sessions, resulting in account takeover and unauthorized deprovisioning. Fixed in 1.6.22 and 1.7.0-beta.10 (1.7.0-rc.0).\"}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-20\", \"description\": \"Improper Input Validation\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"83251b91-4cc7-4094-a5c7-464a1b83ea10\", \"shortName\": \"VulnCheck\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-01T12:22:16.804Z\"}}}",
"cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-67330\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-03T15:38:15.885Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-07-29T13:07:47.015Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"83251b91-4cc7-4094-a5c7-464a1b83ea10\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-08-01T12:22:16.804Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"VulnCheck\"}",
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
Loading…
Loading…