
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: < 2.0.18
Patched in 2.0.18
Vulnerable: < 3.1.6
Patched in 3.1.6
Details
Summary
_build_session_scope() in mem0/memory/main.py builds the conversation-history scope key used to fetch/store the last N raw messages by naively joining caller-supplied user_id/agent_id/run_id values with unescaped & and = delimiters:
def _build_session_scope(filters): parts = [] for key in sorted(["user_id", "agent_id", "run_id"]): val = filters.get(key) if val: parts.append(f"{key}={val}") return "&".join(parts)
_validate_and_trim_entity_id() (the only validation applied to these values) rejects only empty/whitespace-only strings — it never forbids & or =. This scope string is then used as an exact-match key against a SQLite column (storage.py: WHERE session_scope = ?) to fetch the last 10 raw messages for a given scope (main.py, Phase 0 of _add_to_vector_store, both sync and async).
Impact
Any caller who controls only their own run_id (or agent_id) — a very common integration shape, since apps frequently pass a client-/session-supplied identifier straight through as run_id without namespacing — can craft a value containing &user_id=<victim> (or &agent_id=<victim>) that produces a scope string byte-for-byte identical to a different tenant's real scope string.
Concretely: Tenant A calls add(msgs, user_id="alice", run_id="proj-x") → scope "run_id=proj-x&user_id=alice". An attacker who can only set run_id calls add(msgs, run_id="proj-x&user_id=alice") → identical scope string. The attacker's next add() call:
Reachable via the public Memory.add() / AsyncMemory.add() API, and by extension the REST server's POST /memories endpoint (which takes run_id/agent_id straight from the request body).
Reproduction
from mem0.memory.main import _build_session_scope
scope_a = _build_session_scope({"user_id": "alice", "run_id": "proj-x"}) print(scope_a) # "run_id=proj-x&user_id=alice"
scope_c = _build_session_scope({"run_id": "proj-x&user_id=alice"}) print(scope_c) # "run_id=proj-x&user_id=alice"
assert scope_a == scope_c # byte-for-byte collision
A full end-to-end proof (actual add() calls, no mocking of the vulnerable functions) confirms the attacker's subsequent add() call receives the victim's raw prior message content via get_last_messages.
Suggested Fix
Reject & and = in _validate_and_trim_entity_id(), alongside the existing whitespace check — this is the single validation chokepoint already used by every entry point (add, search, get_all, delete_all), so the fix is centralized. Alternatively/additionally, encode each component unambiguously (percent-encode each id, or use a length-prefixed/JSON-encoded scope key) so no valid-character combination in one field can ever collide with a different partition.
Also affected: TypeScript SDK (npm mem0ai)
The same flaw exists in mem0-ts/src/oss/src/memory/index.ts,
Memory.buildSessionScope(), which joins agent_id/run_id/user_id into the same
key=value&key=value string with the delimiters unescaped:
private buildSessionScope(filters: SearchFilters): string {
const parts: string[] = [];
for (const key of ["agent_id", "run_id", "user_id"].sort()) {
const val = (filters as any)[key];
if (val) parts.push(${key}=${val});
}
return parts.join("&");
}
The scope string is used the same way, as an exact-match key into the messages table via SQLiteManager.getLastMessages() and saveMessages(), so the identical forge, cross-tenant read and eviction all apply.
Verified against the current releases as of 2026-07-26: pip mem0ai v2.0.14 and npm mem0ai ts-v3.1.2 both still contain the unescaped join.
Reporter: Abhinav Singh (GitHub: OfficialAbhinavSingh)
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.11%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 1.2% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 10/28/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.