🛡️ Security Policy

Supported Versions

Version	Supported
main	✅
others	❌

Where and How to Report Security Vulnerabilities

info

Open WebUI’s community thrives because of people like you, people who care deeply about making software safer for everyone.

To ensure your findings truly help protect users and are addressed swiftly, please submit all security vulnerability reports only via our official GitHub security page. Any other website, service, or so-called “bounty” platform is not affiliated with us, and your important work will simply not reach those who can make a difference.

We know it can be tempting to trust platforms that make big promises, but only GitHub connects you directly to those safeguarding Open WebUI. Let’s ensure your vigilance genuinely benefits the community, report here, where it really matters.

All security vulnerabilities for Open WebUI must be reported exclusively through our official GitHub repository: https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security.

We are committed to maintaining a secure environment by ensuring that all security vulnerability reports are managed exclusively through our official GitHub platform. By handling disclosures centrally on GitHub, we guarantee that every report is processed transparently, efficiently, and confidentially by the project maintainers. This approach allows us to provide contributors and users with the highest level of visibility, accountability, and assurance that all security-related communications and resolutions are thoroughly documented and reliably managed. Reports submitted through any platform, channel, or third-party service outside of GitHub cannot be incorporated into our official security workflow and, as a result, may not able to contribute to the safety of Open WebUI.

Why Only GitHub?

Our commitment to a single, central reporting mechanism is rooted in both technical rigor and ethical stewardship:

Integrity and Traceability: Managing reports solely via GitHub ensures every issue is handled within the open-source ecosystem, where the community can verify the process, outcomes, and accountability of contributors.
User Safety: Other websites claiming to facilitate vulnerability disclosure, offer rewards, or bounty programs are not affiliated with Open WebUI. Submitting vulnerabilities to such platforms not only fails to make the project safer but can unintentionally place sensitive details at risk of misuse or unauthorized disclosure.
Protecting the Community: When information bypasses our centralized security workflow, the project becomes more susceptible not just to unfixed exploits, but also to the spread of misleading or exploitative practices. Despite claims by outside sites to act as intermediaries or pay bounties, these entities offer no guarantees to users and may encourage questionable or unsafe behavior under the guise of incentivization. Ultimately, only disclosures made via our GitHub ensure that your expertise benefits the entire ecosystem as intended.

Reporting Guidelines

You can find the latest version of the security guidelines here.

To ensure constructive, actionable reports that genuinely improve security, all submissions must meet the following requirements:

Report MUST be a vulnerability: A security vulnerability is an exploitable weakness where the system behaves in an unintended way, allowing attackers to bypass security controls, gain unauthorized access, execute arbitrary code, or escalate privileges. Configuration options, missing features, and expected protocol behavior are not vulnerabilities.
No Vague Reports: Submissions such as "I found a vulnerability" without any details will be treated as spam and will not be accepted.
In-Depth Understanding Required: Reports must reflect a clear understanding of the codebase and provide specific details about the vulnerability, including the affected components and potential impacts.
Proof of Concept (PoC) is Mandatory: Each submission must include a well-documented proof of concept that demonstrates the vulnerability. A PoC must show what security boundary was crossed (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Authenticity, Non-repudiation), how this vulnerability was abused, and what actions the attacker can now perform. Valid PoCs include step-by-step reproduction instructions with exact commands, complete exploit code with detailed execution instructions, or screenshots/videos demonstrating the exploit (supplementary to written steps). If confidentiality is a concern, reporters are encouraged to create a private fork of the repository and share access with the maintainers. Reports lacking valid evidence may be disregarded. We will notify you if we struggle to reproduce the exploit using your PoC, but if we repeatedly cannot reproduce it, the report may be closed.
Required Patch or Actionable Remediation Plan Submission: Along with the PoC, reporters must provide a patch or actionable steps to remediate the identified vulnerability. This helps us evaluate and implement fixes rapidly and demonstrates commitment to the project's ongoing robustness.
Streamlined Merging Process: When vulnerability reports meet the above criteria, we can consider provided patches for immediate merging, similar to regular pull requests. Well-structured and thorough submissions will expedite the process of enhancing our security.
Default Configuration Testing: All vulnerability reports must be tested and reproducible using Open WebUI's out-of-the-box default configuration. Claims of vulnerabilities that only manifest with explicitly weakened security settings may be discarded. However, if you believe you have found a security issue that affects default configurations, represents a genuine bypass of intended security controls, or works only with non-default configurations but the configuration in question is likely to be used by production deployments, then we absolutely want to hear about it. This policy is intended to filter configuration issues and deployment problems, not to discourage legitimate security research.
Threat Model Understanding Required: Reports must demonstrate understanding of Open WebUI's self-hosted, authenticated, role-based access control architecture. Comparing Open WebUI to services with fundamentally different security models without acknowledging the architectural differences may result in report rejection.
CVSS Scoring Accuracy: If you include a CVSS score with your report, it must accurately reflect the vulnerability according to CVSS methodology. Common errors include rating PR:N (None) when authentication is required, scoring hypothetical attack chains instead of the actual vulnerability, or inflating severity without evidence. We will adjust inaccurate CVSS scores. Intentionally inflated scores may result in report rejection. If you cite other CVEs to support your report, ensure they are genuinely comparable in vulnerability type, threat model, and attack vector. Citing CVEs from different product categories, different vulnerability classes, or different deployment models will lead us to suspect the use of AI in your report.
Admin Actions Are Out of Scope: Vulnerabilities that require an administrator to actively perform unsafe actions are not considered valid vulnerabilities. Admins have full system control and are expected to understand the security implications of their actions and configurations. This includes but is not limited to adding malicious external servers (models, tools, webhooks), pasting untrusted code into Functions/Tools, or intentionally weakening security settings. Reports requiring admin negligence or social engineering of admins may be rejected. However, if you believe you have found a vulnerability that affects admins and is not caused by admin negligence or intentionally malicious actions, then we absolutely want to hear about it. This policy is intended to filter social engineering attacks on admins and similar malicious actions, not to discourage legitimate security research.
AI Report Transparency: Due to an extreme spike in AI-aided vulnerability reports, you must disclose if AI was used in any capacity—whether for writing the report, generating the PoC, or identifying the vulnerability. AI-aided vulnerability reports will not be rejected by default. However, if we suspect you used AI but did not disclose it to us, we will be asking tough follow-up questions to validate your understanding of the reported vulnerability and Open WebUI itself. If we suspect you used AI but you did not disclose it and your report ends up being invalid, not a vulnerability, or not reproducible, then you may be banned from reporting future vulnerabilities. This measure was necessary due to the extreme rise in clearly AI-written vulnerability reports where the vast majority were not vulnerabilities, were faulty configurations rather than real vulnerabilities, did not provide a PoC, violated the rules outlined here, had a clear lack of understanding of Open WebUI, wrote comments with conflicting information, or used illogical arguments.

Non-compliant submissions will be closed, and repeat extreme violators may be banned. Our goal is to foster a constructive reporting environment where quality submissions promote better security for all users. Contributors who not only identify a vulnerability but also present a robust, ready-to-merge fix help accelerate our response and strengthen the community.

If you feel like you are not able to follow all outlined requirements for vulnerability-specific reasons, still do report it—we will check every report either way.

If your concern does not meet the vulnerability requirements outlined above, is not a vulnerability, but is still related to security concerns, then use the following channels instead:

Documentation issues/improvement ideas: Open an issue in our Documentation Repository
Feature requests: Create a discussion in GitHub Discussions - Ideas to discuss with the community if this feature request is wanted by multiple people
Configuration help: Ask the community for help and guidance on our Discord Server or on Reddit
General issues: Use our Issue Tracker

Examples of non-vulnerability, still security-related concerns include suggestions for better default configuration values, security hardening recommendations, deployment best practices guidance, unclear configuration instructions, need for additional security documentation, feature requests for optional security enhancements (2FA, audit logging, etc.), and general security questions about production deployment. Please use the adequate channel for your specific issue.

Product Security Process

Internal and periodic external reviews of our architecture and pipelines
Automated and manual testing for both front-end and back-end
Proactive risk management and code reviews as part of ongoing development
Continuous improvements and integration of advanced tooling for static/dynamic analysis

If you have an immediate and actionable security concern, please create a report in our security advisory portal or issue tracker.

Supported Versions​

Where and How to Report Security Vulnerabilities​

Why Only GitHub?​

Reporting Guidelines​

For Non-Vulnerability Related Security Concerns​

Product Security Process​

Supported Versions

Where and How to Report Security Vulnerabilities

Why Only GitHub?

Reporting Guidelines

For Non-Vulnerability Related Security Concerns

Product Security Process