high · 8.5 Patched

OAuthLib: Bearer token can be retrieved as long as client knows a valid client ID for device workflow

CVE-2026-49272 · GHSA-3jp2-3mrg-2vxc · published 27 Oct 2026

How serious is it

  • Severity: high, CVSS score 8.5 out of 10.
  • No exploit prediction (EPSS) score yet.
  • Not on the CISA list of exploited vulnerabilities.
  • No public exploit in Exploit-DB.

Is your app affected by CVE-2026-49272?

Paste this prompt into Claude Code, Cursor or any AI coding tool: it runs a free Shippable scan of your project and fixes what it finds. Built with Lovable, Bolt or v0? Scan your live app. Or upload your package file.

Who is affected

  • oauthlib (PyPI) >= 3.3.0, < 4.0.0

How to check

  1. Run pip show oauthlib in your project to see the installed version, including copies pulled in by other packages.
  2. Or paste your lockfile into the checker: it lists every package with a known vulnerability, this one included.
  3. Or run npx shippable-dev scan localhost:3000 in your project folder. It reads your lockfile and flags this vulnerability along with every other known one.

How to fix

Copies a prompt for Claude Code, Cursor or Codex: it checks your lockfiles for this and upgrades it.
  1. Upgrade oauthlib to 4.0.0 or later, commit the lockfile and redeploy.
  2. If a vulnerable version was live, check your logs and rotate the secrets that server could read.

The advisory

### Summary A call to the token endpoint with a grant type of `"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:device_code"` and a bogus `device_code` is able to get a bearer token as long as they know a valid client ID enabled for the device workflow. ### Details [Section 3.4 of the RFC 8628 spec](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8628#section-3.4) says that the token endpoint should take in `device_code` as a required parameter.`DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request` does not perform any validation of `device_code`. `DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request` should be validating that `device_code` was passed in as a parameter and that it is valid, similar to how `AuthorizationCodeGrant.validate_token_request` does the checks [here](https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/a015b446622f2b925517501fe484c10eff7a83c0/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/grant_types/authorization_code.py#L446) and [here](https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/blob/a015b446622f2b925517501fe484c10eff7a83c0/oauthlib/oauth2/rfc6749/grant_types/authorization_code.py#L483). I would like to propose a new method be added to `RequestValidator` called `validate_device_code` that is similar to the `validate_code` method and is called inside of `DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request`. ### PoC Create an implementation of `RequestValidation.authenticate_client` that returns `True` if the client's `client_type` is `"public"`. You would find yourself in this scenario because there's another issue with `DeviceCodeGrant.validate_token_request` where it doesn't properly handle public clients (see https://github.com/oauthlib/oauthlib/issues/919). Create a client that has a `client_type` of `"public"` and set it's `grant_type` to `"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:device_code"`. With this implementation of `RequestValidation.authenticate_client` done, use that validator for your token endpoint. Call the token endpoint with a body of ``` { "client_id": <ID of the public client you made>, "grant_type": "urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:device_code", "device_code": <anything you want since it's not validated> } ``` You now have a bearer token for the client without a valid `device_code`. ### Impact Anyone using the RFC 8628 device workflow in oauthlib that doesn't realize the `device_code` parameter is not being validated.

Check your whole app

Dependencies are only half of it. Free and read-only: before you push, run npx shippable-dev scan localhost:3000 in your project folder, no account needed. For your live app, you prove it's yours with a one-line tag first.

References

Merged from GitHub Advisory Database, OSV. Last updated 28 Oct 2026. All vulnerabilities · RSS · JSON