What is CVE-2026-101062?

CVE-2026-101062 is Obot before v0.23.0 Authentication Bypass via OAuth Dynamic Client Registration. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Access Control mapped to CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-101062. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-101062 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-101062 using CVSS 8.8, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highAccess Controlpublic exploit

CVE-2026-101062

CVE-2026-101062 — Obot before v0.23.0 Authentication Bypass via OAuth Dynamic Client Registration

Obot before v0.23.0 (affected versions <= v0.22.1) running with OBOT_SERVER_ENABLE_AUTHENTICATION=true exposes OAuth dynamic client registration without authentication and without any restriction on the redirect URIs a client may register. Because the authorization flow auto-completes for an already logged-in user with no consent screen, an attacker who registers a client pointing at their own domain and induces a logged-in victim to visit a single crafted authorization URL receives an authorization code at the attacker-controlled redirect URI and can exchange it for an access token and refresh token. The token minted by the MCP OAuth flow carries the victim's full group set in the JWT, and Obot validated only the issuer and not the audience, so the token is accepted as a bearer token against any Obot API endpoint the victim can access rather than being scoped to the requested MCP server, allowing the attacker to read or modify the victim's resources until the token is revoked. v0.23.0 adds a consent screen, restricts MCP OAuth tokens to the MCP involved in the request, and enforces audience validation.

Published Sep 27, 2026Updated Sep 27, 2026Sources: NVD, obot-platform (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

Not scored

FIRST has not published a score

Affects

obot-platform

2 products listed

CVSS base

8.8

high · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade obot to a fixed release (0.23.0). Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
obot-platform	obot	0 to < 0.23.0	Vulnerable
obot-platform	obot	0.23.0	Patched

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
8.8	CVSS 3.1	high	2.8	5.9	NVD, obot-platform (CNA), GHSA
8.7	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	obot-platform (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-1 · Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLsCAPEC-122 · Privilege Abuse

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable obot.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.8 (AV:N)
Sep 27, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 27, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-cfp9-746c-5jrw published (high)
Sep 27, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

References

4 on the record

github.com/obot-platform/obot/security/advisories/GHSA-xwmw-prc4-v3cr
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/obot-before-0.23.0-authentication-bypass-via-oauth-dynamic-client-registration
Vendor Advisory
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-101062
NVD
github.com/advisories/GHSA-cfp9-746c-5jrw
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

obot-platformevery CVE for this vendor
Access Controlsame class
CWE-863other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-101062 is Obot before v0.23.0 Authentication Bypass via OAuth Dynamic Client Registration, a high vulnerability affecting obot from obot-platform. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-101062. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.