Vibe Break - Chapter VI: The Authentication Amnesia

Enterprise systems:

• Internal company chatbots containing proprietary information
• Human resources applications with employee data
• Customer relationship management systems with client information
• Private data repositories and internal communication tools

The attack profile was horrifyingly accessible:

• No sophisticated hacking tools required
• No brute force attempts needed
• No exploitation of obscure edge cases
• Just basic HTTP requests to publicly documented APIs

The All-in-One Trade-off

Base44's core value proposition is its “all-in-one” approach. Unlike competitors that require stitching together Vercel for hosting, Supabase for database, Auth0 for authentication, and AWS S3 for file storage, Base44 handles everything internally.

This creates enormous convenience. It also creates a single point of failure.

When authentication breaks in a federated architecture, the blast radius is limited to one service. When authentication breaks in Base44's unified stack, every application on the platform becomes vulnerable simultaneously.

The Hardcoded App ID Problem

According to the Wiz research, Base44's applications used app_id values that were:

• Hardcoded into URI paths
• Accessible in public files
• Used as the primary identifier for application access

This design decision—likely made for developer convenience and routing simplicity—meant that knowing an application's ID was sufficient to begin the attack process. No reconnaissance required beyond visiting a public URL.

The Logic Flaw in Registration

The vulnerability stemmed from a fundamental logic flaw in Base44's authentication workflow. The platform left two critical endpoints exposed:

1. The registration mechanism
2. The verification system

These systems should have been completely inaccessible to external users trying to access applications they didn't own. Instead, they were inadvertently exposed through the Swagger-UI documentation interfaces.

As Nagli explained to Dark Reading: “The issue originated primarily from a logic flaw in Base44's authentication workflow.”

Open Redirect with Token Leakage

An open redirect vulnerability allowed attackers to steal access tokens during login. The initial fix only checked whether redirect URLs started with https://app.base44.com—missing variations like app.base44.com.example.com that could slip through validation.

Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)

Researchers identified an XSS vulnerability in the /apps-show/{app-id} endpoint. Because premium features like code editing were only enforced client-side, attackers could inject arbitrary JavaScript into applications running on the trusted app.base44.com domain.

With this vulnerability, an attacker could:

• Steal JWT tokens that authenticated users to the main Base44 account
• Access all of a victim's applications
• Extract sensitive data across the entire account

Client-Side Security Theater

Premium features—including the ability to edit AI-generated code—were enforced only on the client side. Attackers could bypass these restrictions by manipulating API requests directly, gaining access to functionality they hadn't paid for while potentially injecting malicious code.

As Imperva concluded: “The Base44 vulnerabilities highlight how small design flaws in shared infrastructure can escalate into platform-wide risks. As AI-driven development accelerates, the most pressing threats are often not exotic AI attacks but failures in classical security controls.”

Chapter IV: Lovable

• 170 out of 1,645 applications (10.3%) leaking sensitive data
• Client-driven architecture with broken RLS policies
• CVE-2025-48757 affecting databases across the platform
• Security scanner that only checked if policies existed, not if they worked correctly

Chapter V: v0 by Vercel

• Layouts working perfectly in preview but failing in production
• AI randomly switching between models, creating inconsistent styling
• Performance degradation as projects grow
• Predominantly static code that breaks under real-world conditions

Chapter III: Replit

• AI agents deleting production databases despite explicit instructions
• No native webhooks for deployment events
• Lack of testing integration forcing manual validation
• Development/production environment gaps creating deployment failures

1. Audit Authentication Architecture Independently

Don't trust platform claims about security. Before deploying production applications:

• Hire independent security researchers to test authentication flows
• Attempt to access applications without proper credentials
• Test for token leakage, session hijacking, and authorization bypasses
• Verify SSO integration works correctly under adversarial conditions

Budget for this work: Authentication pentests cost $5,000-$25,000 for small applications. Comprehensive security audits run $25,000-$100,000. This is insurance against multi-million dollar breaches.

2. Implement Defense in Depth

Never rely on a single security control, especially in vibe-coded applications:

• Network level: Use Web Application Firewalls (WAF) to filter malicious traffic
• Application level: Add API gateways between clients and backend services
• Data level: Encrypt sensitive data at rest and in transit
• Monitoring level: Deploy SIEM systems to log all access attempts

3. Treat AI-Generated Authentication Code as Untrusted

Never accept AI-generated authentication without review:

• Have security experts review all authentication flows
• Test for common vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10)
• Verify that authentication happens server-side
• Use established authentication libraries (Auth0, AWS Cognito, Supabase Auth)

4. Plan for Platform Failures

Base44's multiple vulnerabilities demonstrate that platforms can fail catastrophically:

• Choose platforms that provide code export (Base44 now offers beta GitHub integration)
• Regularly back up your application code
• Keep authentication, payment processing, and sensitive data handling in external, battle-tested services
• Don't build mission-critical systems entirely on unproven platforms

5. Demand Security Transparency

Before committing to a vibe coding platform, ask the hard questions:

• When was the last independent security audit?
• What vulnerabilities have been disclosed and patched?
• How does the platform handle authentication and authorization?
• Is code generated server-side or client-side?
• What compliance certifications does the platform hold?

Walk away if the platform can't answer basic security questions or has unpatched vulnerabilities.