CVE-2026-42220

Nginx UI is a web user interface for the Nginx web server. Prior to version 2.3.8, an authenticated user can call GET /api/settings and retrieve sensitive configuration values, including node.secret. The same node.secret is accepted by AuthRequired() through the X-Node-Secret header (or node_secret query parameter), causing the request to be treated as authenticated via the trusted-node path and associated with the init user. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.8.

Nginx UI is a web user interface for the Nginx web server. Prior to version 2.3.8, an authenticated user can call GET /api/settings and retrieve sensitive configuration values, including node.secret. The same node.secret is accepted by AuthRequired() through the X-Node-Secret header (or node_secret query parameter), causing the request to be treated as authenticated via the trusted-node path and associated with the init user. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.8.

Summary

An authenticated user can call GET /api/settings and retrieve sensitive configuration values, including node.secret. The same node.secret is accepted by AuthRequired() through the X-Node-Secret header (or node_secret query parameter), causing the request to be treated as authenticated via the trusted-node path and associated with the init user. In my local reproduction on v2.3.6, GET /api/settings also returned app.jwt_secret. After extracting node.secret, I was able to access GET /api/backup using only X-Node-Secret, download a full backup archive, and obtain the X-Backup-Security response header containing the backup decryption material (AESKey:AESIv). I also confirmed that the disclosed node.secret is sufficient to reach the restore workflow on an installed instance. Using only X-Node-Secret, a valid backup archive, and its matching X-Backup-Security token, I successfully invoked POST /api/restore. In a follow-up rollback test, I changed node.name to rollback-poc-B, then restored a previously captured backup and observed the value revert to its original state. This extends the issue beyond secret disclosure and backup exfiltration into confirmed integrity impact through restore-based rollback of nginx-ui state/configuration. This breaks the trust boundary between ordinary user-authenticated API access and the internal node-authentication mechanism, and results in sensitive configuration disclosure, alternate-authentication abuse, backup exfiltration with decryption material, and confirmed restore-based rollback of nginx-ui state.

Details

Vulnerable code / related files and functions

1) Route exposure and insufficient protection on the read path

File: api/settings/router.go

Relevant function: InitRouter

The settings router exposes the following endpoints:

GET /api/settings/server/name → GetServerName
GET /api/settings → GetSettings
POST /api/settings → RequireSecureSession(), SaveSettings

The key issue is that the read path (GET /api/settings) is only protected by the generic authentication middleware, while the write path (POST /api/settings) has an additional RequireSecureSession() check. This makes the read path a much easier place to leak sensitive configuration data than the write path.

r.GET("settings/server/name", GetServerName)
r.GET("settings", GetSettings)
r.POST("settings", middleware.RequireSecureSession(), SaveSettings)

2) Sensitive data is disclosed by GetSettings

File: api/settings/settings.go

Relevant functions: GetSettings, SaveSettings

GetSettings returns multiple configuration objects directly in the JSON response, including app, server, database, auth, casdoor, oidc, cert, http, logrotate, nginx, node, openai, terminal, and webauthn. In other words, the handler does not use a redacted DTO for user-facing output; it serializes the live settings objects directly.

c.JSON(http.StatusOK, gin.H{
  "app":       cSettings.AppSettings,
  "server":    cSettings.ServerSettings,
  "database":  settings.DatabaseSettings,
  "auth":      settings.AuthSettings,
  "casdoor":   settings.CasdoorSettings,
  "oidc":      settings.OIDCSettings,
  "cert":      settings.CertSettings,
  "http":      settings.HTTPSettings,
  "logrotate": settings.LogrotateSettings,
  "nginx":     settings.NginxSettings,
  "node":      settings.NodeSettings,
  "openai":    settings.OpenAISettings,
  "terminal":  settings.TerminalSettings,
  "webauthn":  settings.WebAuthnSettings,
})

In my local reproduction on v2.3.6, this response exposed both:

node.secret
app.jwt_secret

This makes GetSettings the direct disclosure source for the vulnerability.

3) The disclosed value is explicitly defined as protected/sensitive

File: settings/node.go

Relevant object: type Node

The Node settings object defines the following field:

type Node struct {
    Name   string `json:"name" binding:"omitempty,safety_text"`
   …

Nginx UI is a web user interface for the Nginx web server. Prior to version 2.3.8, an authenticated user can call GET /api/settings and retrieve sensitive configuration values, including node.secret. The same node.secret is accepted by AuthRequired() through the X-Node-Secret header (or node_secret query parameter), causing the request to be treated as authenticated via the trusted-node path and associated with the init user. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.8.

Nginx UI is a web user interface for the Nginx web server. Prior to version 2.3.8, an authenticated user can call GET /api/settings and retrieve sensitive configuration values, including node.secret. The same node.secret is accepted by AuthRequired() through the X-Node-Secret header (or node_secret query parameter), causing the request to be treated as authenticated via the trusted-node path and associated with the init user. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.8.

Summary

An authenticated user can call GET /api/settings and retrieve sensitive configuration values, including node.secret. The same node.secret is accepted by AuthRequired() through the X-Node-Secret header (or node_secret query parameter), causing the request to be treated as authenticated via the trusted-node path and associated with the init user. In my local reproduction on v2.3.6, GET /api/settings also returned app.jwt_secret. After extracting node.secret, I was able to access GET /api/backup using only X-Node-Secret, download a full backup archive, and obtain the X-Backup-Security response header containing the backup decryption material (AESKey:AESIv). I also confirmed that the disclosed node.secret is sufficient to reach the restore workflow on an installed instance. Using only X-Node-Secret, a valid backup archive, and its matching X-Backup-Security token, I successfully invoked POST /api/restore. In a follow-up rollback test, I changed node.name to rollback-poc-B, then restored a previously captured backup and observed the value revert to its original state. This extends the issue beyond secret disclosure and backup exfiltration into confirmed integrity impact through restore-based rollback of nginx-ui state/configuration. This breaks the trust boundary between ordinary user-authenticated API access and the internal node-authentication mechanism, and results in sensitive configuration disclosure, alternate-authentication abuse, backup exfiltration with decryption material, and confirmed restore-based rollback of nginx-ui state.

Details

Vulnerable code / related files and functions

1) Route exposure and insufficient protection on the read path

File: api/settings/router.go

Relevant function: InitRouter

The settings router exposes the following endpoints:

GET /api/settings/server/name → GetServerName
GET /api/settings → GetSettings
POST /api/settings → RequireSecureSession(), SaveSettings

The key issue is that the read path (GET /api/settings) is only protected by the generic authentication middleware, while the write path (POST /api/settings) has an additional RequireSecureSession() check. This makes the read path a much easier place to leak sensitive configuration data than the write path.

r.GET("settings/server/name", GetServerName)
r.GET("settings", GetSettings)
r.POST("settings", middleware.RequireSecureSession(), SaveSettings)

2) Sensitive data is disclosed by GetSettings

File: api/settings/settings.go

Relevant functions: GetSettings, SaveSettings

GetSettings returns multiple configuration objects directly in the JSON response, including app, server, database, auth, casdoor, oidc, cert, http, logrotate, nginx, node, openai, terminal, and webauthn. In other words, the handler does not use a redacted DTO for user-facing output; it serializes the live settings objects directly.

c.JSON(http.StatusOK, gin.H{
  "app":       cSettings.AppSettings,
  "server":    cSettings.ServerSettings,
  "database":  settings.DatabaseSettings,
  "auth":      settings.AuthSettings,
  "casdoor":   settings.CasdoorSettings,
  "oidc":      settings.OIDCSettings,
  "cert":      settings.CertSettings,
  "http":      settings.HTTPSettings,
  "logrotate": settings.LogrotateSettings,
  "nginx":     settings.NginxSettings,
  "node":      settings.NodeSettings,
  "openai":    settings.OpenAISettings,
  "terminal":  settings.TerminalSettings,
  "webauthn":  settings.WebAuthnSettings,
})

In my local reproduction on v2.3.6, this response exposed both:

node.secret
app.jwt_secret

This makes GetSettings the direct disclosure source for the vulnerability.

3) The disclosed value is explicitly defined as protected/sensitive

File: settings/node.go

Relevant object: type Node

The Node settings object defines the following field:

type Node struct {
    Name   string `json:"name" binding:"omitempty,safety_text"`
   …

Nginx-UI: Authenticated settings disclosure exposes node.secret and enables trusted-node authentication abuse, backup exfiltration, and restore-based nginx-ui state rollback in github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

• Update to version 0.0.20260723T184607 2026-07-23T18:46:07Z (jsc#PED-11136).

Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

• GO-2026-4730 CVE-2026-33022 GHSA-cv4x-93xx-wgfj
• GO-2026-4761 CVE-2026-33211 GHSA-j5q5-j9gm-2w5c
• GO-2026-5102 CVE-2026-45021 GHSA-3vcp-chfh-f6r2
• GO-2026-5272 CVE-2026-40938 GHSA-94jr-7pqp-xhcq
• GO-2026-5486 CVE-2026-40924 GHSA-m2cx-gpqf-qf74
• GO-2026-5542 CVE-2026-40090 GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q
• GO-2026-5630 CVE-2026-25542 GHSA-rmx9-2pp3-xhcr
• GO-2026-5643 CVE-2026-40923 GHSA-rx35-6rhx-7858
• GO-2026-5675 CVE-2026-41492 GHSA-vvf7-6rmr-m29q
• GO-2026-5711 CVE-2026-40161 GHSA-wjxp-xrpv-xpff
• GO-2026-5746 CVE-2026-41567 GHSA-x86f-5xw2-fm2r
• GO-2026-5749 CVE-2026-41328 GHSA-x92x-px7w-4gx4
• GO-2026-5837 CVE-2026-44840 GHSA-q2m9-6jp9-c6mc
• GO-2026-5929 CVE-2026-44342 GHSA-26v7-h57m-gh9m
• GO-2026-5930 CVE-2026-33655 GHSA-6qcr-qxgr-m7fv
• GO-2026-5933 GHSA-3g4q-2f67-2gvh
• GO-2026-5934 GHSA-59qp-cfj3-rp64
• GO-2026-5935 GHSA-7856-g3gv-9wq8
• GO-2026-5936 CVE-2026-53552 GHSA-26rh-24rg-j3vv
• GO-2026-5937 CVE-2026-53508 GHSA-2jcc-mxv7-p3f9
• GO-2026-5938 CVE-2026-53553 GHSA-4g5x-hcwm-82jw
• GO-2026-5939 CVE-2026-10517 GHSA-698x-9w2p-7vvp
• GO-2026-5940 CVE-2026-53572 GHSA-6w3m-4hhp-775q
• GO-2026-5941 CVE-2026-53487 GHSA-gvhc-wv3v-7pf8
• GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600
• GO-2026-5944 CVE-2026-50197 GHSA-659f-rgp5-w4wf
• GO-2026-5945 CVE-2026-6815 GHSA-rmxx-v9rj-vpvg
• GO-2026-5946 CVE-2026-52831 GHSA-v5px-423j-pf7p
• GO-2026-5947 CVE-2026-53649 GHSA-xqhv-chqm-fhcc
• GO-2026-5948 CVE-2026-50554 GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
• GO-2026-5949 CVE-2026-50553 GHSA-rqrh-8wpv-x7hh
• GO-2026-5950 CVE-2026-53602 GHSA-339v-266x-79xr
• GO-2026-5951 CVE-2026-10219 GHSA-6jm8-4fhr-5w64
• GO-2026-5952 CVE-2026-49834 GHSA-9vcr-p3rj-q5q6
• GO-2026-5953 CVE-2026-9094 GHSA-c9w5-qp6m-m395
• GO-2026-5956 CVE-2026-55252 GHSA-h5g6-xmh4-hc37
• GO-2026-5957 CVE-2026-54158 GHSA-5xfx-xj4h-5p7r
• GO-2026-5958 CVE-2026-54068 GHSA-gcm7-57gf-953c
• GO-2026-5959 CVE-2026-54072 GHSA-h29v-hj44-q8cv
• GO-2026-5961 CVE-2026-54069 GHSA-hvr9-72v2-fff3
• GO-2026-5962 CVE-2026-54088 GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
• GO-2026-5963 CVE-2026-54067 GHSA-mvjr-vv3c-w4qv
• GO-2026-5964 CVE-2026-54066 GHSA-p4m3-mgmm-c664
• GO-2026-5965 CVE-2026-54070 GHSA-w7cg-whh7-xp28
• GO-2026-5966 CVE-2026-54089 GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
• GO-2026-5967 CVE-2026-50551 GHSA-56mp-4f3v-fgj2
• GO-2026-5968 CVE-2026-54174 GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q
• GO-2026-5969 GHSA-g936-7jqj-mwv8
• GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852
• GO-2026-5973 CVE-2026-54250 GHSA-jxr7-mqhw-9p98
• GO-2026-5974 CVE-2026-44300 GHSA-wmj8-9953-vff5
• GO-2026-5975 CVE-2026-50018 GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7
• GO-2026-5976 CVE-2026-50141 GHSA-g7mm-9vx7-jm7h
• GO-2026-5977 CVE-2026-50013 GHSA-qrh4-p6v4-mrfg
• GO-2026-5978 CVE-2026-50125 GHSA-qw5r-ppcg-f8rj
• GO-2026-5979 CVE-2026-50006 GHSA-xrcf-6jh3-ggvx
• GO-2026-5980 CVE-2026-50158 GHSA-2c7f-fxww-6w6c
• GO-2026-5981 GHSA-mqxv-9rm6-w8qc
• GO-2026-5982 GHSA-pqg7-v6wh-3pfp
• GO-2026-5984 CVE-2026-53604 GHSA-2p2f-px33-4vv5
• GO-2026-5985 GHSA-7rx3-5wx3-5v76
• GO-2026-5986 CVE-2026-61699 GHSA-cm26-5974-52h8
• GO-2026-5987 CVE-2026-55513 GHSA-g4x6-jcvr-9m3g
• GO-2026-5988 CVE-2026-54628 GHSA-hwrq-8wxh-q4xv
• GO-2026-5989 CVE-2026-55512 GHSA-m3cx-mwpg-32jg
• GO-2026-5990 CVE-2026-54629 GHSA-mf78-3rpf-r784
• GO-2026-5991 CVE-2026-53603 GHSA-q4vm-pq3q-8wgq
• GO-2026-5992 CVE-2026-61549 GHSA-qf34-295c-26v8
• GO-2026-5996 CVE-2026-54450 GHSA-pph6-vfjv-vpjw
• GO-2026-5997 CVE-2026-54452 GHSA-xgch-x3mx-cm3c
• GO-2026-5998 CVE-2026-54495 GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
• GO-2026-5999 CVE-2026-10814 GHSA-jh6h-v6mp-h22v
• GO-2026-6002 CVE-2026-58196 GHSA-pr64-jmmf-jp54
• GO-2026-6003 CVE-2026-53714 GHSA-22xc-xg2r-9j7v
• GO-2026-6004 CVE-2026-52833 GHSA-3v79-m2cg-89ww
• GO-2026-6005 CVE-2026-53715 GHSA-8fv2-88gg-hm7q
• GO-2026-6006 CVE-2026-53716 GHSA-cxpq-8v7q-cg56 *…