CVE-2026-54146tinyhumansai openhuman incorrect permission assignment
CVE-2026-54146 is a incorrect permission assignment in tinyhumansai openhuman, rated high (8.8 on CVSS 3.1).
Why this priority: High severity, with no exploitation signal yet.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Deferred
What it is
A critical resource has permissions that let the wrong people read or change it.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it by someone who can already run code or sign in on the machine, with an ordinary user account, and nobody has to click anything.
What an attacker gains
A successful attack can read the data it protects, change data or behaviour and take it offline. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker use a weak default the deployment never changed. The damage can spread past the vulnerable component into others.
Is it being exploited?
There is no public report of exploitation yet. EPSS estimates a 0.21% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, higher than 12% of scored CVEs.
What to do
- Upgrade tinyhumansai openhuman to 0.57.5 or later.
- Limit who can run code or sign in on the hosts that run it.
Description from NVD
OpenHuman is an open-source agent harness available as a desktop application and Rust library. From 0.53.15 before 0.57.5 on macOS, core_process.rs in the Tauri desktop process publishes the per-launch OPENHUMAN_CORE_TOKEN bearer credential in its process environment even though the core now runs as an in-process task. Another process running as the same user can read that environment through the macOS KERN_PROCARGS2 process-inspection interface, recover the token together with the local host and port, and authenticate to the core JSON-RPC service with the authority of the desktop frontend. The attacker can read agent memory and integrated-account data, invoke privileged actions, change configuration, and stop or disrupt services without root access, developer mode, or changes to System Integrity Protection. This issue affects Intel and Apple Silicon macOS systems. This issue is fixed in version 0.57.5.
What this means for your architecture.
A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.
Components it touches
- Default settings, permissions and deployment configuration. The flaw sits between the shipped defaults and a hardened deployment.
Trust boundaries in play
- Host boundary. The attacker needs a foothold on the machine first; the flaw turns a small foothold into a bigger one.
- Isolation between components. The impact crosses out of the vulnerable component into others it should be isolated from.
- Between the shipped defaults and a hardened deployment. An attacker who crosses it can use a weak default the deployment never changed.
Questions to answer about your own systems
- Where does tinyhumansai openhuman run in your systems, and at which version?
- Which of those hosts also run code or users you do not fully trust?
- What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?
Read more
Sources
- CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
- Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
- Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.