CVE-2026-40945
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 · uneditedOxia is a metadata store and coordination system. Prior to 0.16.2, when OIDC authentication fails, the full bearer token is logged at DEBUG level in plaintext. If debug logging is enabled in production, JWT tokens are exposed in application logs and any connected log aggregation system. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.16.2.
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 confidenceIn Oxia versions prior to 0.16.2, the full bearer token (containing the JWT) is logged in plaintext at DEBUG level when OIDC authentication fails. If debug logging is enabled in production, these sensitive tokens are exposed in application logs and any connected log aggregation systems, allowing potential attackers to intercept valid authentication credentials.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
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 Oxia installation versionLocate the Oxia installation directory and check the version manifest, package file, or binary version information (e.g., `oxia --version` or check `version` file in installation root)Affected if The installed version is prior to 0.16.2 (versions 0.16.0, 0.15.x, 0.14.x, or older)
-
Verify OIDC authentication is configuredInspect the Oxia configuration files for OIDC/OAuth settings - look for OIDC provider URLs, client IDs, or authentication realm configurations in the main config file or auth configuration directoryAffected if OIDC authentication is enabled and configured in the Oxia environment
-
Check current logging configurationReview the logging configuration file (commonly `logback.xml`, `log4j.properties`, or similar) to determine the active log level settingAffected if Debug-level logging is enabled (log level set to DEBUG or TRACE) in the production configuration
-
Examine recent application logs for token exposureSearch application log files for patterns matching JWT/bearer token strings (look for 'Bearer', 'eyJ', or token-like Base64 content) in DEBUG-level log entriesAffected if Plaintext JWT tokens appear in DEBUG-level log files
You are affected if Oxia version is prior to 0.16.2 AND OIDC authentication is configured AND debug logging is enabled, resulting in plaintext JWTs in logs.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to Oxia version 0.16.2 or later, which sanitizes logged tokens. Additionally, ensure debug logging is disabled in production environments as a defense-in-depth measure.
0.16.2
- Upgrade Oxia to version 0.16.2 or later to remediate the sensitive information logging vulnerability
- Verify the upgrade completes successfully
- Ensure debug logging is reviewed and disabled in production environments unless absolutely necessary
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-40945 — 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-2026-40945 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