GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4: Better auth Alg=none Advertised And Plain PKCE Vulnerability

HIGH
CVSS 8.7
CWE-757 CWE-1188 CWE-327
Published
Advisory Summary

GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4 is a HIGH (CVSS 8.7) alg=none advertised and plain pkce vulnerability (CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade')) affecting Better auth libraries in the npm ecosystem. The issue involves alg=none advertised and plain pkce accepted by default. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 1.6.11.

GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4 at a Glance

CVE Identifier N/A
GHSA Identifier GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4
Severity HIGH
CVSS v3.1 Base Score 8.7
CWE Classification CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade')
Affected Product Better auth
Package Ecosystem npm
Published Date
Last Updated

Security Impact

CVSS: 8.7

The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N).

Attack Vector Network (AV:N)
Attack Complexity High (AC:H)
Privileges Required None (PR:N)
User Interaction None (UI:N)
Scope Changed (S:C)
Confidentiality High (C:H)
Integrity High (I:H)
Availability None (A:N)

How to Fix GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4

To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Better auth dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.

better-auth fixed: 1.6.11
npm install better-auth@1.6.11
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:

npm ls better-auth

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your Node.js application is affected by GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4, inspect your project dependencies using npm:

npm ls better-auth

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Better auth in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 1.6.11), your application is affected.

Note: The npm ls better-auth command inspects dependencies declared in your package.json and lockfile; it does not perform automated runtime dynamic scanning.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis

This vulnerability is classified under CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade'), where a protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties. In Better auth, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.

Source Advisory Statement

### Am I affected? Users are affected if all of the following are true: - Their application uses `better-auth` at a version below the patched release. - Their application enables `oidcProvider()` from `better-auth/plugins/oidc-provider` or `mcp()` from `better-auth/plugins/mcp` (the mcp plugin delegates to `oidcProvider` and inherits both defaults). - For the algorithm-negotiation impact: relying parties of the application's OIDC server use a JWT verification library that performs algorithm negotiation from the discovery document without pinning to a specific signing algorithm. - For the PKCE impact: the authorization URL is exposed to any party other than the user agent and the application's OP. If the application only uses `@better-auth/oauth-provider` (the canonical replacement) and have not enabled the legacy plugins, it is not affected. The new package's discovery document excludes `none` and its authorize schema rejects `plain` at parse time. Fix: 1. Upgrade to `better-auth@1.6.11` or later. 2. Migrate from the deprecated `oidcProvider` and `mcp` plugins to `@better-auth/oauth-provider` when feasible. 3. If developers cannot upgrade their applications, see workarounds below. ### Summary The legacy `oidcProvider` and `mcp` plugins exhibit two related defects in their OIDC discovery and authorize surfaces. The discovery document advertises `"none"` in `id_token_signing_alg_values_supported` (and, for `mcp`, in `resource_signing_alg_values_supported` on the OAuth protected-resource metadata). Any relying party that performs algorithm negotiation from this metadata without pinning to a real signing algorithm may accept unsigned tokens. PKCE `plain` is enabled by default. The runtime gate in the authorize handler accepts `code_challenge_method=plain` under this default, and a missing `code_challenge_method` parameter is silently downgraded to `"plain"` before the allowlist check. Discovery advertises `code_challenge_methods_supported: ["S256"]`, contradicting the runtime acceptance of `plain`. RFC 9700 §2.1.1 (OAuth 2.1) explicitly forbids `plain`. ### Details The metadata builders unconditionally inject `"none"` into the alg list. The runtime authorize gate is structured so a buggy client that strips the `code_challenge_method` parameter still enters the plain code path because the handler rewrites the missing value to `"plain"` before the allowlist check fires. `@better-auth/oauth-provider` (the deprecation target for `oidcProvider`) is not affected by either defect. The metadata builder uses a `JWSAlgorithms` type union that structurally excludes `"none"`. The authorize schema is `code_challenge_method: z.literal("S256").optional()`, which rejects `plain` at parse time. ### Patches Fixed in `better-auth@1.6.11`. The legacy `oidcProvider` and `mcp` plugins now: - Drop `"none"` from `id_token_signing_alg_values_supported` (both plugins) and from `resource_signing_alg_values_supported` (`mcp`). Discovery no longer advertises the unsigned-token option. - Default `allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod` to `false`. A request that explicitly passes `code_challenge_method=plain` is rejected with `invalid_request` unless the integrator opts in. - Reject a `code_challenge` without an accompanying `code_challenge_method` instead of silently rewriting the missing value to `plain`. Clients that send `code_challenge` must also send `code_challenge_method=S256`. Discovery and runtime behavior align on `S256` only by default. Integrators who must keep plain PKCE for legacy clients can restore the previous shape with `oidcProvider({ allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod: true })` (and likewise for `mcp`). With the opt-in set, a request that omits `code_challenge_method` is treated as `plain` again, preserving backwards compatibility while keeping the secure default for everyone else. Both legacy plugins are deprecated long-term; the recommended migration is `@better-auth/oauth-provider`, which never advertised `none` or accepted plain PKCE. ### Workarounds If developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately: - **Disable plain PKCE explicitly**: set `oidcProvider({ allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod: false })` (and the equivalent on `mcp`). Closes the runtime acceptance of `plain` even though the silent downgrade still rewrites missing methods. - **Override the metadata** to drop `"none"` from `id_token_signing_alg_values_supported`. For `oidcProvider`, pass `metadata: { id_token_signing_alg_values_supported: ["RS256"] }`. For `mcp`, set the same on `options.oidcConfig.metadata`. Verify by curling the `.well-known` endpoint. - **Migrate to `@better-auth/oauth-provider`**: the package is the deprecation target and is unaffected by both defects. ### Impact - **Algorithm-negotiation downgrade**: relying parties that read the discovery document without pinning may accept unsigned (`alg: "none"`) tokens. - **Authorization-code interception**: PKCE `plain` does not protect the authorization code if the URL leaks (Referer headers, browser history, screen capture, proxy logs). PKCE `S256` is what protects against that exposure; with `plain` the protection is absent. - **OAuth 2.1 / RFC 9700 non-conformance**: deployments shipping the defaults are non-compliant with current standards. ### Credit Reported by @subhanUmer. ### Resources - [CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/327.html) - [CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/757.html) - [CWE-1188: Insecure Default Initialization of Resource](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1188.html) - [RFC 9700 §2.1.1: PKCE](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9700#section-2.1.1) - [RFC 9700 §2.1.2: Token Replay Prevention](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9700#section-2.1.2) - [RFC 8414 §2: Authorization Server Metadata](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8414#section-2)

GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4 Affected Better auth Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
1.6.11
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
better-auth
npm
< 1.6.11
1.6.11

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4?
GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4 is a security vulnerability in Better auth involving alg=none advertised and plain PKCE accepted by default under CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade').
Which Better auth versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 1.6.11 across affected packages: better-auth.
What version fixes GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4?
Upgrading to 1.6.11 (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is better-auth affected?
Yes, better-auth is affected in releases prior to 1.6.11. Upgrade your dependency to 1.6.11 or later.
What is the CVSS score of GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4?
GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.7 (HIGH) with vector string CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N.
What CWE is associated with GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4?
GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4 is classified under CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') (A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties.).
How can I check npm dependencies for GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4?
Run the dependency tree command: 'npm ls better-auth'. This command lists direct and transitive dependencies in your build configuration so you can verify if a vulnerable version is resolved.
Machine-readable OSV JSON OSV v1.5 Schema
Normalized schema output
{
  "schema_version" : "1.4.0",
  "id" : "GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4",
  "modified" : "2026-07-07T20:55:41Z",
  "published" : "2026-07-07T20:55:41Z",
  "aliases" : [ ],
  "summary" : "Better Auth has insecure cryptographic defaults in oidcProvider: alg=none advertised and plain PKCE accepted by default",
  "details" : "### Am I affected?\n\nUsers are affected if all of the following are true:\n\n- Their application uses `better-auth` at a version below the patched release.\n- Their application enables `oidcProvider()` from `better-auth/plugins/oidc-provider` or `mcp()` from `better-auth/plugins/mcp` (the mcp plugin delegates to `oidcProvider` and inherits both defaults).\n- For the algorithm-negotiation impact: relying parties of the application's OIDC server use a JWT verification library that performs algorithm negotiation from the discovery document without pinning to a specific signing algorithm.\n- For the PKCE impact: the authorization URL is exposed to any party other than the user agent and the application's OP.\n\nIf the application only uses `@better-auth/oauth-provider` (the canonical replacement) and have not enabled the legacy plugins, it is not affected. The new package's discovery document excludes `none` and its authorize schema rejects `plain` at parse time.\n\nFix:\n\n1. Upgrade to `better-auth@1.6.11` or later.\n2. Migrate from the deprecated `oidcProvider` and `mcp` plugins to `@better-auth/oauth-provider` when feasible.\n3. If developers cannot upgrade their applications, see workarounds below.\n\n### Summary\n\nThe legacy `oidcProvider` and `mcp` plugins exhibit two related defects in their OIDC discovery and authorize surfaces.\n\nThe discovery document advertises `\"none\"` in `id_token_signing_alg_values_supported` (and, for `mcp`, in `resource_signing_alg_values_supported` on the OAuth protected-resource metadata). Any relying party that performs algorithm negotiation from this metadata without pinning to a real signing algorithm may accept unsigned tokens.\n\nPKCE `plain` is enabled by default. The runtime gate in the authorize handler accepts `code_challenge_method=plain` under this default, and a missing `code_challenge_method` parameter is silently downgraded to `\"plain\"` before the allowlist check. Discovery advertises `code_challenge_methods_supported: [\"S256\"]`, contradicting the runtime acceptance of `plain`. RFC 9700 §2.1.1 (OAuth 2.1) explicitly forbids `plain`.\n\n### Details\n\nThe metadata builders unconditionally inject `\"none\"` into the alg list. The runtime authorize gate is structured so a buggy client that strips the `code_challenge_method` parameter still enters the plain code path because the handler rewrites the missing value to `\"plain\"` before the allowlist check fires.\n\n`@better-auth/oauth-provider` (the deprecation target for `oidcProvider`) is not affected by either defect. The metadata builder uses a `JWSAlgorithms` type union that structurally excludes `\"none\"`. The authorize schema is `code_challenge_method: z.literal(\"S256\").optional()`, which rejects `plain` at parse time.\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in `better-auth@1.6.11`. The legacy `oidcProvider` and `mcp` plugins now:\n\n- Drop `\"none\"` from `id_token_signing_alg_values_supported` (both plugins) and from `resource_signing_alg_values_supported` (`mcp`). Discovery no longer advertises the unsigned-token option.\n- Default `allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod` to `false`. A request that explicitly passes `code_challenge_method=plain` is rejected with `invalid_request` unless the integrator opts in.\n- Reject a `code_challenge` without an accompanying `code_challenge_method` instead of silently rewriting the missing value to `plain`. Clients that send `code_challenge` must also send `code_challenge_method=S256`.\n\nDiscovery and runtime behavior align on `S256` only by default.\n\nIntegrators who must keep plain PKCE for legacy clients can restore the previous shape with `oidcProvider({ allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod: true })` (and likewise for `mcp`). With the opt-in set, a request that omits `code_challenge_method` is treated as `plain` again, preserving backwards compatibility while keeping the secure default for everyone else. Both legacy plugins are deprecated long-term; the recommended migration is `@better-auth/oauth-provider`, which never advertised `none` or accepted plain PKCE.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately:\n\n- **Disable plain PKCE explicitly**: set `oidcProvider({ allowPlainCodeChallengeMethod: false })` (and the equivalent on `mcp`). Closes the runtime acceptance of `plain` even though the silent downgrade still rewrites missing methods.\n- **Override the metadata** to drop `\"none\"` from `id_token_signing_alg_values_supported`. For `oidcProvider`, pass `metadata: { id_token_signing_alg_values_supported: [\"RS256\"] }`. For `mcp`, set the same on `options.oidcConfig.metadata`. Verify by curling the `.well-known` endpoint.\n- **Migrate to `@better-auth/oauth-provider`**: the package is the deprecation target and is unaffected by both defects.\n\n### Impact\n\n- **Algorithm-negotiation downgrade**: relying parties that read the discovery document without pinning may accept unsigned (`alg: \"none\"`) tokens.\n- **Authorization-code interception**: PKCE `plain` does not protect the authorization code if the URL leaks (Referer headers, browser history, screen capture, proxy logs). PKCE `S256` is what protects against that exposure; with `plain` the protection is absent.\n- **OAuth 2.1 / RFC 9700 non-conformance**: deployments shipping the defaults are non-compliant with current standards.\n\n### Credit\n\nReported by @subhanUmer.\n\n### Resources\n\n- [CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/327.html)\n- [CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/757.html)\n- [CWE-1188: Insecure Default Initialization of Resource](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1188.html)\n- [RFC 9700 §2.1.1: PKCE](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9700#section-2.1.1)\n- [RFC 9700 §2.1.2: Token Replay Prevention](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9700#section-2.1.2)\n- [RFC 8414 §2: Authorization Server Metadata](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8414#section-2)",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V3",
    "score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "npm",
      "name" : "better-auth"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0"
      }, {
        "fixed" : "1.6.11"
      } ]
    } ]
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-9h47-pqcx-hjr4"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/releases/tag/v1.6.11"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-1188", "CWE-327", "CWE-757" ],
    "severity" : "HIGH",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-07-07T20:55:41Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : null
  }
}