ChromadbApplication · Trychroma
CVE-2026-45830
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 · uneditedA lack of authorization validation in version 0.4.17 or later of the ChromaDB Python project allows any authenticated users to arbitrarily read, write, update, or delete data in any tenant's collection regardless of which tenant they belong to.
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 confidenceThis is a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in ChromaDB Python versions 0.4.17 and later, where the system fails to validate that authenticated users are authorized to access specific tenant collections. This allows any authenticated user to arbitrarily read, write, update, or delete data in any tenant's collection regardless of their actual tenant membership.
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
ChromadbApplication
>= 0.4.17, <= 1.5.9CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify ChromaDB versionRun 'pip show chromadb' or check your requirements file to find the installed version of the chromadb packageAffected if The installed version is between 0.4.17 and 1.5.9 inclusive
-
Confirm multi-tenancy is in useInspect your application code or configuration to determine if ChromaDB is being used with tenant-aware collections or the multi-tenant APIAffected if Multi-tenant collections or tenant_id parameters are being used in your ChromaDB client calls
-
Verify tenant isolation configurationCheck if your ChromaDB deployment uses the tenant API (client.tenant.get_or_create) and stores tenant-specific collectionsAffected if Tenants are created and collections are associated with specific tenant IDs in your setup
-
Test cross-tenant accessIf you have access to multiple tenants, attempt to access a collection belonging to a different tenant using the same authenticated credentials to see if isolation is enforcedAffected if A user can read, write, update, or delete data in collections belonging to tenants they are not a member of
You are affected if you are running ChromaDB version 0.4.17 through 1.5.9 and using its multi-tenant feature, because the missing authorization check allows cross-tenant data access.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of ChromaDB that implements proper tenant-level authorization validation, ensuring all data access operations verify the user's tenant membership before allowing access.
Fix this in Chromadb
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,288.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-45830 — 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-2026-45830 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