CVE-2026-48096
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 · uneditedOpenFGA is an authorization/permission engine built for developers. Prior to version 1.16.0, when iterator caching is enabled, two distinct check requests can produce the same cache key, leading to OpenFGA reusing an earlier cached result for a subsequent request. This issue has been patched in version 1.16.0.
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 confidenceOpenFGA versions prior to 1.16.0 contain a cache key collision vulnerability when iterator caching is enabled. Two distinct authorization check requests can generate identical cache keys, causing the system to return a cached result from an earlier request instead of evaluating the current request. This can lead to incorrect authorization decisions where access may be incorrectly granted or denied.
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< 0.3.5< 1.16.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Check OpenFGA server versionRun 'openfga version' or check the container/image metadata to identify the installed OpenFGA version numberAffected if Version is prior to 1.16.0 (e.g., 1.15.x, 1.14.x, etc.)
-
Check if iterator caching is enabledInspect the OpenFGA configuration file (config.yaml) or environment variables for the 'iteratorCaching' or 'iterator-caching' setting. If using environment variables, look for OPENFGA_ITERATOR_CACHING=true or similarAffected if Iterator caching is explicitly set to enabled (true or enabled) in the configuration
-
Verify Helm Chart version (if deployed via Helm)Run 'helm list -n <namespace>' and check the CHART version column, or run 'helm get values <release-name>' to see installed chart versionAffected if Helm Chart version is prior to 0.3.5 and iterator caching is enabled in values
You are affected if OpenFGA version is below 1.16.0 (or Helm Chart below 0.3.5) AND iterator caching is enabled in your configuration, as this creates the conditions for the cache key collision to occur.
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 · scoped0.3.51.16.0
Upgrade to OpenFGA version 1.16.0 or later which contains the patch for this cache key collision issue. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, consider disabling iterator caching as a temporary workaround.
OpenFGA >= 1.16.0, Helm Charts >= 0.3.5
- Upgrade OpenFGA to version 1.16.0 or later to address the iterator caching cache key collision vulnerability
- If deploying via Helm, upgrade the Helm chart to version 0.3.5 or later
- After upgrading, verify that iterator caching functions correctly and that distinct requests no longer produce identical cache keys
- Test the authorization logic in a non-production environment before deploying the upgrade to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-48096 — 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-2026-48096 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