BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-66885High confidence

Livebook Teams identity callback lacks state binding, allowing login CSRF

livebook-dev · livebook

Official source article: GitHub GHSA-PVVW-28FW-C6FG ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.

6.8MediumCVSS 4.0
Recommended action
Scheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityMediumOperational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • EPSS is 0.24% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
  • Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
  • Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs livebook-dev livebook and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: As exposure requiresRemediation target: Within 365 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-53603

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionScheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in livebook-dev livebook allows an attacker to authenticate a victim's browser session under the attacker's own Livebook Teams identity. When Livebook is configured to use Livebook Teams for identity, Livebook.ZTA.LivebookTeams.handle_request/4 in lib/livebook/zta/livebook_teams.ex handles the OAuth-style callback carrying a teams_identity marker and a code parameter. The clause exchanges that code for an access token and writes the token into the browser session without verifying any value that ties the callback to the browser session that started the login. No state or nonce is generated when the flow is initiated: Livebook.Teams.Requests.create_auth_request/1 in lib/livebook/teams/requests.ex sends an empty request body, so no per-attempt value is ever registered, and the callback clause has nothing to compare against. An attacker who holds membership in the same Livebook Teams organisation as the target instance can therefore begin the login flow themselves, retain the resulting authorization code without redeeming it, and induce a victim to open a crafted URL carrying that code. The victim's browser completes the exchange and the resulting session is bound to the attacker's identity rather than the victim's. The victim is not required to hold any particular privilege, and no credential belonging to the victim is involved. The vulnerability does not allow the attacker to authenticate as the victim. The consequence is that a user believes they are working in their own authenticated session while they are in fact operating as another identity. Work performed in that session is attributed to the attacker's account, and secrets, uploaded data, or notebook results the victim produces are exposed to the attacker rather than kept in the victim's own account. The authorization code must be redeemed within a short window after the login flow begins, which constrains the timing of the attack but not its feasibility. This issue affects livebook: from 0.15.0 before 0.18.7 and from 0.19.0 before 0.19.9.

What

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in livebook-dev livebook allows an attacker to authenticate a victim's browser session under the attacker's own Livebook Teams identity. When Livebook is configured to use Livebook Teams for identity, Livebook.ZTA.LivebookTeams.handle_request/4 in lib/livebook/zta/livebook_teams.ex handles the OAuth-style callback carrying a teams_identity marker and a code parameter. The clause exchanges that code for an access token and writes the token into the browser session without verifying any value that ties the callback to the browser session that started the login. No state or nonce is generated when the flow is initiated: Livebook.Teams.Requests.create_auth_request/1 in lib/livebook/teams/requests.ex sends an empty request body, so no per-attempt value is ever registered, and the callback clause has nothing to compare against. An attacker who holds membership in the same Livebook Teams organisation as the target instance can therefore begin the login flow themselves, retain the resulting authorization code without redeeming it, and induce a victim to open a crafted URL carrying that code. The victim's browser completes the exchange and the resulting session is bound to the attacker's identity rather than the victim's. The victim is not required to hold any particular privilege, and no credential belonging to the victim is involved. The vulnerability does not allow the attacker to authenticate as the victim. The consequence is that a user believes they are working in their own authenticated session while they are in fact operating as another identity. Work performed in that session is attributed to the attacker's account, and secrets, uploaded data, or notebook results the victim produces are exposed to the attacker rather than kept in the victim's own account. The authorization code must be redeemed within a short window after the login flow begins, which constrains the timing of the attack but not its feasibility. This issue affects livebook: from 0.15.0 before 0.18.7 and from 0.19.0 before 0.19.9.

Why

The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in livebook-dev livebook allows an attacker to authenticate a victim's browser session under the attacker's own Livebook Teams identity. When Livebook is configured to use Livebook Teams for identity, Livebook.ZTA.LivebookTeams.handle_request/4 in lib/livebook/zta/livebook_teams.ex handles the OAuth-style callback carrying a teams_identity marker and a code parameter. The clause exchanges that code for an access token and writes the token into the browser session without verifying any value that ties the callback to the browser session that started the login. No state or nonce is generated when the flow is initiated: Livebook.Teams.Requests.create_auth_request/1 in lib/livebook/teams/requests.ex sends an empty request body, so no per-attempt value is ever registered, and the callback clause has nothing to compare against. An attacker who holds membership in the same Livebook Teams organisation as the target instance can therefore begin the login flow themselves, retain the resulting authorization code without redeeming it, and induce a victim to open a crafted URL carrying that code. The victim's browser completes the exchange and the resulting session is bound to the attacker's identity rather than the victim's. The victim is not required to hold any particular privilege, and no credential belonging to the victim is involved. The vulnerability does not allow the attacker to authenticate as the victim. The consequence is that a user believes they are working in their own authenticated session while they are in fact operating as another identity. Work performed in that session is attributed to the attacker's account, and secrets, uploaded data, or notebook results the victim produces are exposed to the attacker rather than kept in the victim's own account. The authorization code must be redeemed within a short window after the login flow begins, which constrains the timing of the attack but not its feasibility. This issue affects livebook: from 0.15.0 before 0.18.7 and from 0.19.0 before 0.19.9.

Why

The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
a network path → Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
Active interaction required
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-352 ↗

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UIActiveUser interaction: A user must take a deliberate action for exploitation to succeed.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VINoneVulnerable-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
NetworkCWE-352
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20260812Security Bulletin 12 Aug 2026

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 12 Aug 2026, published on 12 August 2026. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2026-027774livebookにおけるクロスサイトリクエストフォージェリの脆弱性

livebook-devのlivebookにおけるクロスサイトリクエストフォージェリ(CSRF)脆弱性により、攻撃者は被害者のブラウザセッションを攻撃者自身のLivebook TeamsのIDで認証させることが可能です。LivebookがLivebook Teamsをアイデンティティとして使用するよう設定されている場合、lib/livebook/zta/livebook_teams.ex内のLivebook.ZTA.LivebookTeams.handle_request/4がteams_identityマーカーとcodeパラメータを持つOAuthスタイルのコールバックを処理します。この節では、そのコードをアクセストークンと交換し、ログインを開始したブラウザセッションに結びつける値の検証を行わずにセッショントークンを書き込みます。ログインフロー開始時にstateやnonceは生成されず、lib/livebook/teams/requests.exのLivebook.Teams.Requests.create_auth_request/1は空のリクエストボディを送信するため、試行ごとの値は登録されず、コールバックの節では比較対象となる値が存在しません。同じLivebook Teams組織のメンバーである攻撃者は、自身でログインフローを開始して発行された認可コードを使用せずに保持し、そのコードを含む巧妙に作成されたURLを被害者に開かせることができます。被害者のブラウザが認可コード交換を完了すると、そのセッションは被害者ではなく攻撃者のIDに紐付けられます。被害者は特別な権限を持つ必要はなく、その被害者の資格情報も関与しません。この脆弱性により攻撃者が被害者として認証できるわけではありません。結果として、ユーザーは自身の認証済みセッションで作業していると信じていますが、実際には異なるIDで操作を行っています。そのセッションで行った作業は攻撃者のアカウントに帰属し、被害者が作成した秘密情報、アップロードしたデータ、ノートブックの結果などは被害者のアカウントではなく攻撃者にさらされます。認可コードはログインフロー開始後の短い期間内に引き換えられる必要があるため、攻撃のタイミングは制限されますが、実行可能性が損なわれることはありません。この問題はlivebookのバージョン0.15.0から0.18.7未満および0.19.0から0.19.9未満に影響を及ぼします。

Official advisory ↗
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Patch available
Affected
livebook: 0.15.0 < 0.18.7, 0.19.0 < 0.19.9, 0.15.0-cuda12 < 0.18.7-cuda12, 0.19.0-cuda12 < 0.19.9-cuda12, 4380a411920531223088267ed1c0ad21f96ef660 < *
Fixed
An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
Action
Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 5 Aug 2026 · Last source change 6 Aug 2026, 13:09 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-53603
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-66885 · cve.blacktree.nl