CVE-2026-41574
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 · uneditedNhost is an open source Firebase alternative with GraphQL. Prior to version 0.49.1, Nhost automatically links an incoming OAuth identity to an existing Nhost account when the email addresses match. This is only safe when the email has been verified by the OAuth provider. Nhost's controller trusts a profile.EmailVerified boolean that is set by each provider adapter. The vulnerability is that several provider adapters do not correctly populate this field they either silently drop a verified field the provider API actually returns (Discord), or they fall back to accepting unconfirmed emails and marking them as verified (Bitbucket). Two Microsoft providers (AzureAD, EntraID) derive the email from non-ownership-proving fields like the user principal name, then mark it verified. The result is that an attacker can present an email they don't own to Nhost, have the OAuth identity merged into the victim's account, and receive a full authenticated session. This issue has been patched in version 0.49.1.
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 confidenceNhost versions before 0.49.1 have a critical OAuth account linking vulnerability where the EmailVerified field is improperly validated across multiple provider adapters. Discord silently drops the verified field from the provider API, Bitbucket marks unconfirmed emails as verified, and Microsoft providers (AzureAD/EntraID) derive email from non-ownership-proving fields like userPrincipalName and mark them verified. Attackers can link their OAuth identity to a victim's account by presenting an email they don't own, gaining full authenticated sessions.
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< 0.49.1CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check Nhost/auth versionLocate and inspect the running Nhost/auth service version - typically via container image tag, Helm chart version, or the /health endpoint response if it exposes version infoAffected if The installed version is before 0.49.1
-
Identify configured OAuth providersReview Nhost configuration files (typically nhost.toml, config.yaml, or environment variables) for OAuth provider entries - look for sections like providers.oauth or Authentication > OAuth providers in the admin dashboardAffected if Any OAuth providers are enabled or configured
-
Verify if vulnerable providers are in useCheck the OAuth provider configuration for Discord, Bitbucket, Microsoft AzureAD, or Microsoft EntraID - these three provider types are explicitly mentioned as vulnerable in this CVEAffected if Discord, Bitbucket, or Microsoft (AzureAD/EntraID) OAuth providers are configured
-
Inspect email verification behaviorTest the OAuth flow with a test account using one of the vulnerable providers - attempt to sign in using an email address you do not own or control, and verify whether the account linking process accepts an unverified emailAffected if The system links an OAuth identity using an email that was not proven to be owned by the user (email_verified field is not properly validated)
You are affected if running Nhost/auth versions before 0.49.1 with Discord, Bitbucket, or Microsoft AzureAD/EntraID OAuth providers enabled, as the email_verified field is not properly validated before account linking.
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 · scoped0.49.1
Upgrade to Nhost version 0.49.1 or later. Additionally, audit all configured OAuth providers to ensure email verification is properly validated before account linking occurs.
Nhost/auth version 0.49.1
- Identify the Nhost/auth dependency in your project (check package.json, go.mod, or similar dependency file)
- Update the Nhost/auth package to version 0.49.1 or later
- Run dependency update/install to fetch the patched version
- Verify the update was successful by checking the installed version
- Rebuild and redeploy your application to ensure the patched library is in production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41574 — 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-2026-41574 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