dbcve.org
Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2026-55638

HIGH · 8.6 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-10
Patch available
A vendor patch is available. No clean upgrade release — apply the published patch.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available 6 weeks old

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
9Router is an AI router & token saver. Prior to 0.5.2, 9router protects /v1, /v1beta, /api/v1, and /api/v1beta in src/dashboardGuard.js but omits /codex before next.config.mjs rewrites /codex/* to /api/v1/responses. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send requests to /codex/* to bypass the API-key gate and cause the server to make upstream provider calls using operator-stored LLM provider credentials. This issue is fixed in version 0.5.2.

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 confidence

9Router's dashboard guard in src/dashboardGuard.js protects /v1, /v1beta, /api/v1, and /api/v1beta paths but omits /codex. The next.config.mjs configuration rewrites /codex/* to /api/v1/responses, allowing unauthenticated attackers to bypass the API-key gate and invoke upstream LLM provider calls using operator-stored credentials.

MitigationUpgrade to version 0.5.2 or later, which adds /codex to the protected paths in the dashboard guard.

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
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
High

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

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

  1. Identify 9Router installation and version
    Locate the package.json file in the 9Router project root and check the version field under dependencies or devDependencies for the 9Router package entry.
    Affected if The installed version is below 0.5.2.
  2. Locate dashboard guard source
    Find src/dashboardGuard.js in the 9Router project directory and open it for inspection.
    Affected if The file exists and the version is below 0.5.2.
  3. Verify protected paths in dashboard guard
    Open src/dashboardGuard.js and search for the array or object that defines the protected path prefixes. Look for entries like /v1, /v1beta, /api/v1, /api/v1beta.
    Affected if The protected paths list does NOT include /codex or /codex/*.
  4. Locate Next.js configuration
    Find next.config.mjs (or next.config.js) in the project root and open it.
    Affected if The file exists and contains a rewrite rule mapping /codex/* to /api/v1/responses.
  5. Confirm vulnerability condition
    Verify that BOTH conditions are true: (1) the dashboard guard does not protect /codex paths, AND (2) next.config.mjs has the /codex/* rewrite enabled.
    Affected if Both conditions are true - the guard omits /codex while the rewrite rule exposes it.

You are affected if running 9Router version below 0.5.2 with /codex/* rewrite enabled in next.config.mjs while the dashboard guard does not include /codex in its protected paths.

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
Patch available Apply the vendor patch
Vendor patch github.com →
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to version 0.5.2 or later, which adds /codex to the protected paths in the dashboard guard.

Recommended fix High confidence

0.5.2

  1. Upgrade 9Router to version 0.5.2 or later using your package manager (e.g., npm install [email protected] or pip install -U 9router==0.5.2 depending on the package distribution method)
  2. After upgrading, verify that the /codex endpoint is now properly protected by the dashboardGuard.js authorization check
  3. Test that API key authentication is required for all API endpoints including /codex/* paths
  4. Confirm that unauthenticated requests to /codex/* are rejected with appropriate authentication errors

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

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation1.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
5.0 hours of engineering $860
Get the patch applied

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-55638 — 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-2026-55638 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