Skip to content

BuildNot yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher2 min readPublished

Four September n8n advisories come back 'not found' on OSV.dev and GitHub's database

Two of n8n's three September advisory batches, at least 26 advisories in all, have no CVE IDs, a dev.to post reports. A green scanner report on a self-hosted instance says little until someone checks the version by hand.

The Engineer · Build desk

How we use AISend a correction

Illustration accompanying Four September n8n advisories come back 'not found' on OSV.dev and GitHub's database
Generated illustration
Two later n8n advisory batches shipped with no CVE IDs Advisories in n8n's 16 and 30 September batches, both published without CVE IDs, and the advisories the author looked up in public databases on 12 October.

Key figures: at least 26 advisories in the two batches without CVE IDs; at least 12 in the 16 September batch; 14 in the 30 September batch; 4 advisories looked up on OSV.dev and GitHub's Advisory Database, every lookup returning 'not found'.

Two later n8n advisory batches shipped with no CVE IDs
FigureValueNoteClaim
Advisories without CVE IDs26 advisoriesat least; two batches16
16 September batch12 advisoriesat least3
30 September batch14 advisories4
Looked up, all 'not found'4 advisoriesOSV.dev and GitHub Advisory Database1

What happened

  • The first September batch, published on 10 September, did get CVE IDs and is in the public databases.
  • The 16 September batch has at least 12 advisories, fixed in 2.39.6 on stable, 2.40.1 on beta and 1.123.80 on 1.x.
  • The 30 September batch has 14 advisories, 10 of them rated high.
  • On 12 October 2026 the post's author looked up four of these advisories on OSV.dev and in GitHub's Advisory Database, and every lookup returned 'not found'.

Why it matters

  • exposure Self-hosted instances watched only by a dependency scan are the exposed group. n8n Cloud is already patched.
  • constraint The advisory's mitigation for the unauthenticated OAuth client flaw is to restrict network access. On Linux, ports that Docker publishes skip ufw and firewalld, so a host firewall rule may not enforce that.
  • decision Teams that treat a green scan as sign-off on n8n need a second gate: the running version compared with the fix for their release line.
  • precedent The author says the same pattern appeared with vLLM and Open WebUI, so the gap follows how projects publish advisories and is not specific to n8n.

A dependency scanner is a lookup. It takes a package and a version, finds matching records in an advisory database, and reports them. According to the post, npm audit, Dependabot and OSV-Scanner read OSV.dev and the GitHub Advisory Database, so with no record to match they can call an n8n 2.40.0 install clean [17]. From a dashboard, an empty result looks the same as a clean one. The author calls this a pattern: a project publishes GitHub security advisories without requesting CVE IDs [18].

The evidence is thin in three places. Four lookups cover four of at least 26 advisories [16], which is no more than about 15% of the total [15]. The check ran on one day, and the author says the databases pick up only some such advisories, sometimes weeks later [19]. The post is also written by an AI called MV2, made by Munim, Inc., and it recommends a free browser checker and a local script [14]. The advisory IDs are printed in the post, so anyone can repeat the search [1].

The unlisted bugs are not minor. In the 30 September batch, GHSA-3qcw-p65v-c7vq is rated CVSS 8.2 and needs no login: OAuth clients can be stored through the authorize endpoint without authentication [6]. GHSA-4c7j-qff5-r9cx matches workflows with dynamic webhook paths by path alone, so a request can run a workflow from another project [7]. In the 16 September batch, GHSA-rx55-8qhx-4hwx is rated CVSS 8.5 and lets a session token leak out through the authorize endpoint for Dynamic Credentials [8]. The Git node's log operation, in GHSA-x8wx-g24x-3549, can be made to run programs on the server [9].

The fix is a version number. On stable, update to 2.41.4 or newer; the latest on npm is 2.42.6. Beta needs 2.42.1 or newer, and 1.x needs 1.123.83 or newer [5]. The post gives three ways to read the running version: Help > About n8n in the editor, `n8n --version`, or `docker exec <container> n8n --version` [11].

If an affected instance was reachable from the internet, the post advises reviewing users, OAuth clients and API keys, looking for executions you do not recognise, and rotating the credentials stored in n8n [13]. In our view, for these two batches the scanner's silence tells an operator little, and the version string is the test.

What to watch

  • Whether OSV.dev and the GitHub Advisory Database add records for the 16 and 30 September GHSA IDs, which a repeat lookup would show.
  • Whether n8n's next advisory batch is published with CVE IDs.

Clarity's read

What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.

Reality

Evidence42
Adoption
Insufficient
Hype gap+20
Incentives45
Confidence40
Why these scores

Claim ledger

Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.

  1. [1]

    On 12 October 2026 the author looked up four advisories (GHSA-4c7j-qff5-r9cx, GHSA-x5cw-hm7v-q7mj and GHSA-3qcw-p65v-c7vq from 30 September, and GHSA-rx55-8qhx-4hwx from 16 September) on OSV.dev and in the GitHub Advisory Database, and every lookup returned 'not found'.

    ReportedSupportedSource: dev.to post by MV22 sources— create a free account to open themView cited source
  2. [2]

    n8n's first September 2026 advisory batch, on 10 September, got CVE IDs and is in the public databases.

    ReportedSupportedSource: dev.to post by MV2View cited source
  3. [3]

    The 16 September batch has at least 12 advisories, fixed in 2.39.6 (stable), 2.40.1 (beta) and 1.123.80 (1.x), and has no CVE IDs.

    ReportedSupportedSource: dev.to post by MV2View cited source

Sources

1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.

  1. dev.to

    1 article · October 11, 2026

    Self-hosted n8n before 2.41.4: 26 September advisories with no CVE ID, and npm audit won't show them

Share your take

Let Clarity write the post for you.

Signed-in readers get a short post drafted on this story in the register they choose — narrative, analytical, or a direct position — editable to the last word before it goes anywhere. The share buttons at the top of this story work without an account.

Topics and entities

Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.

Topics

  • Vulnerability disclosure and CVE coverageFollow
  • Dependency ScanningFollow
  • Self-hosted AI tooling securityFollow
Loading related stories