CVE-2026-87994

## Summary Any member of a channel who can post to it could also replace the text of a message written by a different member. The channel branch of the chat completions endpoint checked that the caller may write to the channel, and that the targeted message belongs to that channel, but never checked that the caller actually wrote the message being edited. The message kept its original author, so the replacement text was displayed and stored as though the victim had written it. The dedicated channel message edit route performed the authorship check correctly and refused the same edit, so the two paths disagreed about who may modify a message. ## Preconditions - Channels must be enabled. `ENABLE_CHANNELS` defaults to `False`, so a default deployment is not affected until an administrator turns channels on. - The attacker must be an approved user holding write access to the target channel, which is the ordinary state for any participant. No elevated role, group membership or additional permission is needed, and the attacker does not need to be the channel owner. - The attacker must know the id of the targeted message. That id is returned to every member who reads the channel, so it requires no further access. - Channels the attacker cannot post to are not affected, and neither are deployments with channels disabled. ## Impact An attacker can rewrite what another member said, under that member's name, in a shared channel. The stored record and every later reader show the victim as the author of text they never wrote, so this is a loss of both integrity and non-repudiation: the victim cannot point to the record to show what they actually said. A conversation can be silently altered after the fact rather than only appended to. How much control the attacker has over the replacement text depends on the configured model, because the text is produced by generating a completion into the victim's message. Reducing a message to unrelated or empty content works regardless of t