dbcve.org
Improper Access ControlWeakness · CWE-284

CVE-2026-45296

HIGH · 7.7 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
83/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
OpenReplay is a self-hosted session replay suite. Prior to 1.26.0, OpenReplay's Python API exposes several app_apikey routes that trust a caller-provided projectKey after validating only that the API key itself is valid and that the target projectKey exists. The authorization flow does not verify that the authenticated API key and the requested project belong to the same tenant. Because the public tracker design exposes projectKey to browser-side code, an attacker who owns any valid API key for their own tenant can target another tenant's project by reusing that public projectKey. The vulnerable routes allow the attacker to enumerate victim user sessions and then retrieve sensitive session event data across the tenant boundary. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.26.0.

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 confidence

OpenReplay's Python API has a broken access control vulnerability in app_apikey routes. The API validates that the provided API key is valid and the target projectKey exists, but fails to verify that the API key and projectKey belong to the same tenant. Since projectKey is exposed to browser-side code, an attacker with a valid API key for their own tenant can target another tenant's project by using the public projectKey, enabling session enumeration and sensitive event data exfiltration across tenant boundaries.

MitigationUpgrade to OpenReplay 1.26.0 or later, which implements proper tenant ownership validation in the authorization flow.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify OpenReplay installation and version
    Locate the OpenReplay installation directory or container. Check the version by inspecting package.json, version file, or running 'docker images' if containerized. Compare the version number to 1.26.0.
    Affected if The installed version is earlier than 1.26.0
  2. Verify multi-tenant deployment
    Check if OpenReplay is configured for multi-tenant use by examining the configuration files (usually in /api or /config directories). Look for MULTI_TENANT or TENANT_ID settings, or check if multiple organization/team configurations exist.
    Affected if Multi-tenancy is enabled and multiple tenants share the same OpenReplay instance
  3. Confirm API key authentication is in use
    Inspect the OpenReplay API configuration to verify that API key-based authentication (app_apikey routes) is enabled. Check for API_KEY or APIKEY configuration flags in the backend settings.
    Affected if API key authentication is enabled for the API endpoints
  4. Check app_apikey route handler for tenant validation
    Examine the Python API source code in the app_apikey route handlers. Look for the authorization logic that validates API key and projectKey. Search for code that compares tenant_id or organization_id between the API key and the target project.
    Affected if The app_apikey route handler does not perform tenant/owner validation between the API key and the projectKey before processing requests

If OpenReplay version is below 1.26.0, multi-tenancy is enabled, and API key authentication is in use, the installation is vulnerable to cross-tenant access via projectKey enumeration.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to OpenReplay 1.26.0 or later, which implements proper tenant ownership validation in the authorization flow.

Recommended fix High confidence

1.26.0

  1. Download or pull the latest OpenReplay release version 1.26.0 from the official GitHub repository
  2. Stop the currently running OpenReplay services
  3. Back up the existing database and configuration files
  4. Upgrade the OpenReplay installation to version 1.26.0 using your deployment method (e.g., Docker, Kubernetes, or manual installation)
  5. Restart the OpenReplay services
  6. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking that the version reported is 1.26.0 or higher
  7. Test that the app_apikey routes now correctly enforce tenant-level authorization

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-45296 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-45296 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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