CVE-2020-26877
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker's control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 fails to validate the redirect_uri parameter against registered client URIs before issuing authorization codes. An attacker can submit a malicious redirect_uri under their control, and when a legitimate user completes the authorization flow, the authorization code is sent to the attacker's URI instead of a legitimate registered one, enabling code theft.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 0.3.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server installationLocate the ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server application in your environment. Check for the server process, service, or deployed application files. Common locations include /opt/apifest, /var/www/apifest, or within a container named apifest-oauth.Affected if ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server is present in the environment
-
Confirm installed version is 0.3.1Check the version of the installed ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server. Inspect the package.json, VERSION file, or the application's main entry point. Run: grep -r '"version"' . 2>/dev/null | grep -i apifest, or check the WAR/JAR file manifest if deployed as Java.Affected if The installed version is exactly 0.3.1
-
Verify OAuth authorization endpoint is accessibleConfirm the /oauth/authorize endpoint is exposed and accessible. Check server configuration files (typically config/application.conf or similar) for the authorization endpoint definition. Attempt to access the authorization endpoint via HTTP GET request.Affected if The OAuth authorization endpoint is exposed and reachable
-
Check for registered OAuth clientsInspect the client registration data store (database, config file, or memory). Look for client_id and redirect_uri entries in the clients table or configuration. This data is typically stored in a database table named 'oauth_clients' or similar.Affected if There are OAuth clients registered with redirect_uri values configured
If ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server version 0.3.1 is running with an exposed authorization endpoint and has registered clients, the environment is vulnerable to redirect_uri validation bypass.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement strict redirect_uri validation by verifying that the submitted redirect_uri exactly matches a registered URI for the requesting client before issuing any authorization code, as required by RFC 6749 Section 3.1.2.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-26877 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-26877 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data