Cloudflare provides services that help run 20% of the web, but we don’t do it alone. Developers on our platform use a myriad of tools and services from other companies too. Cloudflare provides a rich API for our platform that enables developers to create automations, CI/CD, and integrations that glue together the various parts of their infrastructure. Earlier this month, we announced self-managed OAuth, making it easier for customers to create and manage their own OAuth clients for delegated access to the Cloudflare API.

Cloudflare isn’t new to OAuth. If you’ve used Wrangler, or used integrations from partners like PlanetScale, then you’ve already used it. However, until now, third-party OAuth was only available through a small number of manually onboarded integrations, and was not available to developers more broadly. That meant developers building their own integrations had to rely on API tokens, which are harder to manage and a poor fit for many delegated application flows. 

Over the last year, we onboarded a growing number of early partners while improving the consent, revocation, and security model behind Cloudflare OAuth. But as our Developer Platform grew and agentic tools drove demand for delegated access, it became clear that opening up OAuth to all customers was critical to the success of our platform. 

With self-managed OAuth, developers can now offer a standard OAuth flow where customers grant scoped access directly, making it easier to build SaaS integrations, internal developer platforms, and agentic tools while giving users clearer consent, easier revocation, and more control over what an application can do.

Scaling the ecosystem securely

While our earlier OAuth solution was sufficient for a small number of carefully managed partners, we realized that our permissions model, our consent experience, and our ways of mitigating potential abuse vectors were not mature enough. 

Earlier this year we updated our consent experience to make it clearer which application is requesting access, and what permissions it will receive. We also added revocation to the dashboard so developers can easily control which applications have access to their data, and made app ownership more visible to prevent OAuth phishing attacks. 

Opening self-managed OAuth to all customers also required major upgrades to our underlying OAuth engine. This process required a large amount of planning to do with minimal user interruption, while also ensuring data stability and security.

Planning the upgrade to our OAuth engine

Years ago, we deployed Hydra, an open-source OAuth engine, to power Cloudflare OAuth under the hood. That deployment served us well when usage was limited, but as the developer platform grew and agentic workflows became more common, it became clear that we needed a major upgrade to unlock new capabilities and improve performance. 

As we planned the upgrade, we decided to do two smaller sequential upgrades rather than doing one large upgrade.  First, we would move to the latest 1.X release, evaluate any behavior or performance changes, and then proceed with the 2.X upgrade.

During our upgrade planning, it became clear that even the 1.X upgrade would still impact customers because the Hydra database required extensive schema migrations that:

1. Created indexes in a manner that would claim an exclusive lock on critical tables, preventing active users from performing important OAuth operations 
2. Added columns to critical tables, and moved other columns to new tables

There was also a quirk in the version of Hydra we were using in which the SDK would perform SELECT * operations, causing deserialization issues with the schema changes.

To prevent user impact, we rewrote the SQL migrations to use features such as CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, and built a custom version of Hydra which selected explicit columns rather than SELECT *.

With the latest 1.X upgrade planned out, we now needed to create a plan for the even larger 2.X upgrade. We identified three potential options, and weighed the benefits and drawbacks of each one. Doing an in-place upgrade was not going to work for us, due to the sheer amount of schema changes the major version bump brought with it. We decided that a blue-green strategy would work, but there was more that needed to be done than simply flipping a switch to start using the new version. The upgrade and migration process would take multiple hours, and we needed the system to continue functioning correctly in that time window.

The first blue-green option would involve disabling writes to the database, preventing any new authorizations from occurring. This means they would not be lost in the transition, but it also meant that nobody would be able to use existing OAuth apps unless they already had a valid credential. It also presented another large problem: if users needed to revoke access from an application for any reason, it would not be possible while the upgrade was being performed.

To combat these issues, we came up with a way to leave writes to the database enabled, at the cost of losing some of them in the switch to the green version. The first thing to solve was minimizing the number of writes for new tokens. There was an operational lever we pulled: increasing the expiry time of tokens to multiple hours. This would allow apps that received new tokens before the upgrade to continue using them without needing to refresh.

With reducing writes solved, we needed to come up with a way to not lose any revocations our users performed during the upgrade window. To do this, we created a queue system (using Cloudflare Queues!) which, after a revocation event, would have a record written into the queue with information about that revocation. This would allow us to drain the queue with the database flipped to the green version, replaying all revocation events that took place in the time window in which they would have been lost. This was critical to get right, otherwise applications that users had revoked would inadvertently have their access restored.

Executing the upgrade

Upgrading to 1.X

From an operational point of view, our first upgrade to the last 1.X release went off without any hitches. Our custom database migrations ran faster than we expected, with no user impact. We had to do a hard cutover to the new version because the old version was unable to introspect tokens that were created by the newer version.

After the cutover, we saw an increase in refresh token errors that we had not seen before. This ended up being due to stricter refresh invalidation behaviors in the new version; if a refresh token was reused, Hydra would invalidate the whole access and refresh token chain. This is problematic for Wrangler and MCP clients. These clients both have a high request volume, and a single reused refresh token would invalidate the entire session.

We mitigated this by adding refresh token coalescing behavior to our Worker which routes OAuth traffic to the correct destination. This allowed us to briefly cache the refresh token request before it reached Hydra, so that if we detected a retry we could short-circuit the request and respond without invalidating the tokens. Fortunately, 2.X versions of Hydra have a configurable “refresh token grace period”, which resolves this by allowing a refresh token to be retried for a period of time without invalidating the whole chain.

Upgrading to 2.X

Since multiple hours of high user-facing impact would not be acceptable, we had our blue-green upgrade strategy set. At a high level, this sounds simple; the migrations would run on a copy of our production database, and then cut over along with the new Hydra version after they complete. In reality, there were a lot more moving parts:

• Enable revocation replay capture queue
• Copy and restore our database to the new target
• Targeted data cleanup — existing data violated some new constraints introduced in the newer versions, which could prevent migrations from succeeding
• Perform cutovers on the Hydra service along with two additional critical internal systems simultaneously to prevent any errors
• Post-cutover monitoring and validation

We chose an upgrade window when Hydra had the lowest request volume per second to minimize lost token writes. Other than some timeout tuning, our production migrations ran well against the new database: the net runtime in production was approximately three hours. After the migrations completed, we carefully rolled out the new version of the Hydra service, along with two additional system configs to flip our systems to use the new SDK version.

Shortly after cutting traffic over, we observed that a data cleanup job in our authorization service (which relies on the Hydra consent session API) was being overeager in its purging of OAuth policy data. After investigation, we discovered that there was an issue in one of the Hydra migrations that corrupted the state of certain valid OAuth sessions, which resulted in the migration marking them as invalid. The valid sessions being corrupted caused a disagreement between Hydra and our authorization service, manifesting as an increase in 403s. To mitigate this, we did data restorations and began work on improvements for OAuth authorization behaviors to remove reliance on static policy data.

Beyond the data cleanup issue, there were some additional small fixes more driven by specific client behaviors which we landed quickly. 

With the Hydra version upgrade complete, OAuth traffic has remained stable with improved system performance and reliability for our customers. It also brought production onto the same foundation our newer OAuth APIs had already been validated against in staging, clearing the way for our self-managed OAuth release on June 3. 

Performance improvements

After completing a large upgrade like this, it is always rewarding and illuminating to look at some broad metrics about the impact. We gathered additional metrics during the database migrations, and observed considerable performance improvements after the upgrade was complete.

Database

Hydra performance

Self-managed OAuth for all

Opening up OAuth to all customers is an important step toward a broader Cloudflare app ecosystem. Today, any Cloudflare customer can create their own OAuth applications and build integrations on top of Cloudflare. We’re extremely excited to launch Cloudflare self-managed OAuth for all. 

To get started, take a look at our documentation or jump straight to the OAuth apps page in the dashboard and create your first OAuth app.

For the last few months, we've been testing a range of security-focused LLMs on our own infrastructure. These LLMs  help identify potential vulnerabilities in our own systems, so we can fix them – and they also show us what attackers are going to be able to do with the latest models.

None of these LLMs has captured more attention than Mythos Preview, from Anthropic. A few weeks ago, we were invited to use Mythos Preview as part of Project Glasswing. We soon pointed it at more than fifty of our own repositories – to see what it would find, and to see how it works.

This post shares what we observed, what the models did well and what they didn't, and how the architecture and process around them needs to change, so they can be used at scale.

What changed with Mythos Preview

Mythos Preview is a real step forward, and it's worth saying that plainly before getting into anything else. We've been running models against our code for a while now, and the jump from what was possible with previous general-purpose frontier models to what Mythos Preview does today is not just a refinement of what came before.

It's a different kind of tool doing a different kind of work, and that makes a clean apples-to-apples comparison to earlier models difficult. So rather than trying to benchmark Mythos Preview against general-purpose frontier models, it's more useful to describe what it can actually do, and two features that stood out across the work we did with Mythos Preview:

• Exploit chain construction - A real attack rarely uses one bug. It chains several small attack primitives together into a working exploit. For instance, it might turn a use-after-free bug into an arbitrary read and write primitive, hijack the control flow, and use return-oriented programming (ROP) chains to take full control over a system. Mythos Preview can take several of these primitives and reason about how to combine them into a working proof. The reasoning it shows along the way looks like the work of a senior researcher rather than the output of an automated scanner.
• Proof generation - Finding a bug and proving it's exploitable are two different things, and Mythos Preview can do both. It writes code that would trigger the suspected bug, compiles that code in a scratch environment, and runs it. If the program does what the model expected, that's the proof. If it doesn't, the model reads the failure, adjusts its hypothesis, and tries again. The loop matters as much as the bugs it finds, because a suspected flaw without a working proof is speculation, and Mythos Preview closes that gap on its own.

Some of what we describe above is not entirely unique to Mythos Preview. When we ran other frontier models through the same harness, they found a fair number of the same underlying bugs, and in some cases they got further than we expected on the reasoning side too. Where they fell short was at the point of stitching the pieces together. A model would identify an interesting bug, write a thoughtful description of why it mattered, and then stop, leaving the actual chain unfinished and the question of exploitability open. What changed with Mythos Preview is that a model can now take those low-severity bugs (which would traditionally sit invisible in a backlog) and chain them into a single, more severe exploit. 

Model refusals in legitimate vulnerability research

The Mythos Preview model provided by Anthropic, as part of Project Glasswing, did not have the additional safeguards that are present in generally available models (like Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5).

Despite this, the model organically pushes back on certain requests - much like the cyber capabilities that made it useful for vulnerability hunting, the model has its own emergent guardrails that sometimes cause it to push back on legitimate security research requests. But as we found, these organic refusals aren’t consistent - the same task, framed differently or presented in a different context, could produce completely different outcomes as illustrated in the examples below.

^{Example of Mythos Preview pushing back on building a working proof of concept} 

For example, the model initially refused to do vulnerability research on a project, then agreed to perform the same research on the same code after an unrelated change to the project’s environment. Nothing about the code being analyzed had changed.

In another case, the model found and confirmed several serious memory bugs in a codebase, and then refused to write a demonstration exploit. The same request, framed differently, got a different answer, and even the same request can produce different outcomes across runs due to the probabilistic nature of the model. Semantically equivalent tasks can produce opposite outcomes depending on how and when they’re presented to the model.

This matters because while the model’s organic refusals/guardrails are real, they aren’t consistent enough to serve as a complete safety boundary on their own. That’s precisely why any capable cyber frontier model made generally available in the future must include additional safeguards on top of this baseline behavior - making it appropriate for broader use outside of a controlled research context like Project Glasswing.

The signal-to-noise problem

One of the hardest parts of triaging security vulnerabilities is deciding which bugs are real, which are exploitable, and which need fixing now. This was a hard problem even in the pre-AI world. AI vulnerability scanners and AI-generated code have made it worse, and at Cloudflare we've built multiple post-validation stages to deal with it.

Two factors dominate the noise rate:

• Programming language - C and C++ give you direct memory control and, with it, bug classes - buffer overflows, out-of-bounds reads and writes - that memory-safe languages like Rust eliminate at compile time. We saw consistently more false positives from projects written in memory-unsafe languages.
• Model bias - A good human researcher tells you what they found and how confident they are. Models don't. Ask a model to find bugs, and it will find them, whether the code has any or not. Findings come back hedged with "possibly," "potentially," "could in theory," and the hedged findings vastly outnumber the solid ones. That's a reasonable bias for an exploratory tool. It's a ruinous one for a triage queue, where every speculative finding spends human attention and tokens to dismiss, and that cost compounds across thousands of findings.

Mythos Preview represents a clear improvement here, particularly in its ability to chain primitives - combining multiple vulnerabilities into a working proof of concept rather than reporting them in isolation. A finding that arrives with a PoC is a finding you can act on, and it means far less time spent asking "is this even real?"

Our harnesses are deliberately tuned to over-report, so we see more (and miss less), which comes with a lot more noise. But at triage time, Mythos Preview's output has noticeably higher quality: fewer hedged findings, clearer reproduction steps, and less work to reach a fix-or-dismiss decision.

Why pointing a generic coding agent at a repo doesn't work

When we first started AI-assisted vulnerability research last year, our instinct was the obvious one: point a generic coding agent at an arbitrary repository and ask it to discover vulnerabilities. This approach works, in the sense that the model will produce findings, but it doesn't work in producing meaningful coverage of a real codebase and identifying findings of value. There are two main reasons for this:

• Context - Coding agents are tuned for one focused stream of work: building a feature, fixing a bug, writing a refactor. They ingest a lot of source code, hold a single hypothesis at a time, and iterate against it. That's exactly the wrong shape for vulnerability research, which is narrow and parallel by nature. A human researcher picks one specific thing to look at and investigates it thoroughly. That one thing might be a single complex feature, transitions across security boundaries, or a specific vulnerability class like command injections, where attacker input ends up being run as a shell command. Then they do it again, for a different feature, security boundary, or vulnerability class, several thousand times across the codebase. A single agent session (even with subagents) against a hundred-thousand-line repository can cover maybe a tenth of a percent of the surface in a useful way before the model's context window fills up and compaction kicks in - potentially discarding earlier findings that would have mattered.
• Throughput - A single-stream agent does one thing at a time, but real codebases need many hypotheses against many components at once, with the ability to fan out further when something interesting turns up. You can drive a single agent harder, but at some point you stop being limited by the model and start being limited by the shape of the interaction itself. Using the model directly in a coding agent turns out to be fine for manual investigation when a researcher already has a lead and wants a second pair of eyes. However, it's the wrong tool for achieving high coverage. Once we accepted that, we stopped trying to make Mythos Preview do the wrong job and started building the harness around it instead.

What a harness actually fixes

Four lessons came out of running the work at scale, and each one pointed to the need for a harness that manages the overall execution:

• Narrow scope produces better findings - Telling the model "Find vulnerabilities in this repository" makes it wander. Telling it "Look for command injection in this specific function, with this trust boundary above it, here's the architecture document and here's prior coverage of this area" makes it do something much closer to what a researcher would actually do.
• Adversarial review reduces noise - Adding a second agent between the initial finding and the queue - one with a different prompt, a different model, and no ability to generate its own findings - catches a lot of the noise that the first agent would miss if it just checked its own work. It turns out that putting two agents in deliberate disagreement is way more effective than just telling one agent to be careful.
• Splitting the chain across agents produces better reasoning - Asking "Is this code buggy?" and "Can an attacker actually reach this bug from outside the system?" are two different questions, and the model is better at each one when you ask them separately, because each question is narrower than the combined version.
• Parallel narrow tasks beat one exhaustive agent - Coverage improves when many agents work on tightly scoped questions and we deduplicate the results afterward, rather than asking one agent to be exhaustive.

Each of those observations is about model behavior, and put together they describe something that isn't a chat interface anymore. It's a harness that helps you achieve the final outcomes. The first steps to building a harness are simple, as you can ask the model to help, which is what we did. We used Mythos Preview to build on, tailor, and improve our original harnesses to suit its strengths.

An example of what a harness looks like in practice is described below.

Our vulnerability discovery harness

Here's what our vulnerability discovery harness looks like, stage by stage. It was used to scan live code across our runtime, edge data path, protocol stack, control plane, and the open-source projects we depend on.

What this means for security teams

The loudest reaction to Mythos Preview from other security leaders has been about speed - scan faster, patch faster, compress the response cycle. More than one team we have spoken with is now operating under a two-hour SLA from CVE release to patch in production. The instinct is understandable: when the attacker timeline shortens, the defender timeline has to shorten with it. Faster is not going to be enough, and we think a lot of teams are about to spend a lot of time, effort, and money learning that the hard way.

Patching faster does not change the shape of the pipeline that produces the patch. If regression testing takes a day, you cannot get to a two-hour SLA without skipping it, and the bugs you ship when you skip regression testing tend to be worse than the bugs you were trying to patch. We learned a version of this when we tried letting the model write its own patches and watched a few go out that fixed the original bug while quietly breaking something else the code depended on.

The harder question is what the architecture around the vulnerability should look like. The principle is to make exploitation harder for an attacker even when a bug exists, so that the gap between when a vulnerability is disclosed and when it is patched matters less. That means defenses that sit in front of the application and block the bug from being reached. It means designing the application so that a flaw in one part of the code cannot give an attacker access to other parts. It means being able to roll out a fix to every place the code is running at the same moment, rather than waiting on individual teams to deploy it. 

We also recognize this topic cuts both ways. The same capabilities that helped us find bugs in our own code will, in the wrong hands, accelerate the attack side against every application on the Internet. Cloudflare sits in front of millions of those applications, and the architectural principles described above are exactly the ones our products are built to apply on behalf of customers. We will share more on what that means for customers in the weeks ahead.

If your team is doing similar work and would like to compare notes, reach out to us at security-ai-research@cloudflare.com.

Our research with Mythos Preview was conducted in a controlled environment against our own code; every vulnerability surfaced through this work was triaged, validated, and remediated where action was needed under Cloudflare's formal vulnerability management process.

This work was a team effort. Thanks to Albert Pedersen, Craig Strubhart, Dan Jones, Irtefa Fairuz, Martin Schwarzl, and Rohit Chenna Reddy for their contributions to the research, engineering, and analysis behind this blog post.

Agents let you build software faster than ever, but securing your environment and the code you write — from both mistakes and malice — takes real effort. Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) details a number of risks present in agentic AI systems, including the risk of credential leaks, user impersonation, and elevation of privilege. These risks can result in extreme damage to your environments including denial of service, data loss, or data leaks — which can do untold financial and reputational damage. 

This is an identity problem. In modern development, "identities" aren't just people — they are the agents, scripts, and third-party tools that act on your behalf. To secure these non-human identities, you need to manage their entire lifecycle: ensuring their credentials (tokens) aren't leaked, seeing which applications have access via OAuth, and narrowing their permissions using granular RBAC.

Today, we are introducing updates to address these needs: scannable tokens to protect your credentials, OAuth visibility to manage your principals, and resource-scoped RBAC to fine-tune your policies.

Understanding identity: Principals, Credentials, and Policies

To secure the Internet in an era of autonomous agents, we have to rethink how we handle identity. Whether a request comes from a human developer or an AI agent, every interaction with an API relies on three core pillars:

• The Principal (The Traveler): This is the identity itself — the "who." It might be you logging in via OAuth, or a background agent using an API token to deploy code.
• The Credential (The Passport): This is the proof of that identity. In this world, your API token is your passport. If it’s stolen or leaked, anyone can "wear" your identity.
• The Policy (The Visa): This defines what that identity is allowed to do. Just because you have a valid passport doesn't mean you have a visa to enter every country. A policy ensures that even a verified identity can only access the specific resources it needs.

When these three pillars aren't managed together, security breaks down. You might have a valid Principal using a stolen Credential, or a legitimate identity with a Policy that is far too broad.

Leaked token detection

Agents and other third-party applications use API tokens to access the Cloudflare API. One of the simplest ways that we see people leaking their secrets is by accidentally pushing them to a public GitHub repository. GitGuardian reports that last year more than 28 million secrets were published to public GitHub repositories, and that AI is causing leaks to happen 5x faster than before.

If an API token is a digital passport, then leaking it on a public repository is like leaving your passport on a park bench. Anyone who finds it can impersonate that identity until the document is canceled. Our partnership with GitHub acts like a global "lost and found" for these credentials. By the time you realize your passport is missing, we’ve already identified the document, verified its authenticity via the checksum, and voided it to prevent misuse.

We’re partnering with several leading credential scanning tools to help proactively find your leaked tokens and revoke them before they could be used maliciously. We know it’s not a matter of if, but rather when, before you, an employee, or one of your agents makes a mistake and pushes a secret somewhere it shouldn’t be. 

GitHub

We’ve partnered with GitHub and are participating in their Secret Scanning program to find your tokens in both public and private repositories. If we are notified that a token has leaked to a public repository, we will automatically revoke the token to prevent it from being used maliciously. For private repositories, GitHub will notify you about any leaked Cloudflare tokens and you can clean these up.

How it works

We’ve shared the new token formats (below!) with GitHub, and they now scan for them on every commit. If they find something that looks like a leaked Cloudflare token, they verify the token is real (using the checksum), send us a webhook to revoke it, and then we notify you via email so you can generate a new one in Dashboard settings.

This means we plug the hole as soon as it’s found. By the time you realize you made a mistake, we've already fixed it. 

We hope this is the kind of feature you don’t need to use, but our partners are on the lookout for leaks to help keep you secure. 

Cloudflare One

Cloudflare One customers are also protected from these leaks. By configuring the Credentials and Secrets DLP profile, organizations can activate prevention everywhere a credential can travel:

• Network Traffic (Cloudflare Gateway): Apply these entries to a policy to detect and block Cloudflare API tokens moving across your network. A token in a file upload, an outbound request, or a download is stopped before it reaches its destination.
• Outbound Email (Cloudflare Email Security): Microsoft 365 customers can extend this same prevention to Outlook. The DLP Assist add-in scans messages before delivery, catching a token before it’s sent externally.
• Data at Rest (Cloudflare CASB): Cloudflare’s Cloud Access Security Broker applies the same profile to scan files across connected SaaS applications, catching tokens saved or shared in Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, and other integrated services.

The most novel exposure vector, though, is AI traffic. Cloudflare AI Gateway integrates with the same DLP profiles to scan and block both incoming prompts and outgoing AI model responses in real time.

Other credential scanners

The only way credential scanning works is if we meet you where you are, so we are working with several open source and commercial credential scanners to ensure you are protected no matter what secret scanner you use. 

How it works

Until now, Cloudflare’s API tokens were pretty generic looking, so they were hard for credential scanners to identify with high confidence. These automated security tools scan your code repositories looking for exposed credentials like API keys, tokens or passwords. The “cf” prefix makes Cloudflare tokens instantly recognizable with greater confidence, and the checksum makes it easy for tools to statically validate them. Your existing tokens will continue to work, but every new token you generate will use the scannable format so it’s easily detected with high confidence.

Getting started

If you have existing API tokens, you can roll the token to create a new, scannable API token. This is optional, but recommended to ensure that your tokens are easily discoverable in case they leak. 

While API tokens are generally used by your own scripts and agents, OAuth is how you manage access for third-party platforms. Both require clear visibility to prevent unauthorized access and ensure you know exactly who — or what — has access to your data.

Improving the OAuth consent experience

When you connect third-party applications like Wrangler to your Cloudflare Account using OAuth, you're granting that application access to your account’s data. Over time, you may forget why you granted a third party application access to your Account in the first place. Previously, there was no central place to view & manage those applications. Starting today, there is.  

Going forward, when a third party application requests access to your Cloudflare account, you’ll be able to review: 

• Which third-party application is requesting access, along with information about the application like Name, Logo, and the Publisher.
• Which scopes the third-party application is requesting access to.
• Which accounts to grant the third party application access to.

Not all applications require the same permissions; some only need to read data, others may need to make changes to your Account. Understanding these scopes before you grant access helps you maintain least-privilege.

We also added a Connected Applications experience so you can see which applications have access to which accounts, what scopes/permissions are associated with that application, and easily revoke that access as needed. 

Getting started

The OAuth consent and revocation improvements are available now. Check which apps currently have access to your accounts by visiting My Profile > Access Management > Connected Applications. 

For developers building integrations with Cloudflare, keep an eye on the Cloudflare Changelog for more announcements around how you can register your own OAuth apps soon! 

Fine-grained resource-level permissioning 

If the token is the passport, then resource-scoped permissions are the visas inside it. Having a valid passport gets you through the front door, but it shouldn't give you access to every room in the building. By narrowing the scope to specific resources — like a single Load Balancer pool or a specific Gateway policy — you are ensuring that even if an identity is verified, it only has the "visa" to go where it’s strictly necessary.

Last year, we announced support for resource scoped permissions in Cloudflare’s role-based access control (RBAC) system for several of our Zero Trust products. This enables you to right size permissions for both users and agents to minimize security risks. We’ve expanded this capability to several new resources-level permissions. The resource scope is now supported for:

• Access Applications
• Access Identity Providers
• Access Policies
• Access Service Tokens
• Access Targets

We’ve also completely overhauled the API Token creation experience, making it easier for customers to provision and manage Account API Tokens right from the Cloudflare Dashboard.

How it works

When you add a member to your Cloudflare account or create an API Token, you typically assign that principal a policy. A Permission Policy is what gives a principal permission to take an action, whether that’s managing Cloudflare One Access Applications, or DNS Records. Without a policy, a principal can authenticate, but they are unauthorized to do any actions within an account.

Policies are made up of three components: a Principal, a Role, and a Scope. The Principal is who or what you're granting access to, whether that's a human user, a Non-Human Identity (NHI) like an API Token, or increasingly, an Agent acting on behalf of a user. The Role defines what actions they're permitted to take. The Scope determines where those permissions apply, and historically, that's been restricted to the entire account, or individual zones.

New permission roles

We’re also expanding the role surface more broadly at both the Account & Zone level with the introduction of a number of new roles for many products.  

• Account scope
  • CDN Management
  • MCP Portals
  • Radar
  • Request Tracer
  • SSL/TLS Management
• Zone scope
  • Analytics
  • Logpush
  • Page Rules
  • Security Center
  • Snippets
  • Zone Settings

Getting started

The resource scope and all new account and zone-level roles are available today for all Cloudflare customers. You can assign account, zone, or resource-scoped policies through the Cloudflare Dashboard, the API, or Terraform. 

For a full breakdown of all available roles and how scopes work, visit our roles and scope documentation.

Secure your accounts

These updates provide the granular building blocks needed for a true least-privilege architecture. By refining how we manage permissions and credentials, developers and enterprises can have greater confidence in their security posture across the users, apps, agents, and scripts that access Cloudflare. Least privilege isn’t a new concept, and for enterprises, it’s never been optional. Whether a human administrator is managing a zone or an agent is programmatically deploying a Worker, the expectation is the same, they should only be authorized to do the job it was given, and nothing else. 

Following today’s announcement, we recommend customers:

1. Review your API tokens, and reissue with the new, scannable API tokens as soon as possible. 
2. Review your authorized OAuth apps, and revoke any that you are no longer using
3. Review member & API Token permissions in your accounts and ensure that users are taking advantage of the new account, zone, or resource scoped permissions as needed to reduce your risk area. 

We have thousands of internal apps at Cloudflare. Some are things we’ve built ourselves, others are self-hosted instances of software built by others. They range from business-critical apps nearly every person uses, to side projects and prototypes.

All of these apps are protected by Cloudflare Access. But when we started using and building agents — particularly for uses beyond writing code — we hit a wall. People could access apps behind Access, but their agents couldn’t.

Access sits in front of internal apps. You define a policy, and then Access will send unauthenticated users to a login page to choose how to authenticate. 

^{Example of a Cloudflare Access login page}

This flow worked great for humans. But all agents could see was a redirect to a login page that they couldn’t act on.

Providing agents with access to internal app data is so vital that we immediately implemented a stopgap for our own internal use. We modified OpenCode’s web fetch tool such that for specific domains, it triggered the cloudflared CLI to open an authorization flow to fetch a JWT (JSON Web Token). By appending this token to requests, we enabled secure, immediate access to our internal ecosystem.

While this solution was a temporary answer to our own dilemma, today we’re retiring this workaround and fixing this problem for everyone. Now in open beta, every Access application supports managed OAuth. One click to enable it for an Access app, and agents that speak OAuth 2.0 can easily discover how to authenticate (RFC 9728), send the user through the auth flow, and receive back an authorization token (the same JWT from our initial solution). 

Now, the flow works smoothly for both humans and agents. Cloudflare Access has a generous free tier. And building off our newly-introduced Organizations beta, you’ll soon be able to bridge identity providers across Cloudflare accounts too.

How managed OAuth works

For a given internal app protected by Cloudflare Access, you enable managed OAuth in one click:

Once managed OAuth is enabled, Cloudflare Access acts as the authorization server. It returns the www-authenticate header, telling unauthorized agents where to look up information on how to get an authorization token. They find this at https://<your-app-domain>/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server. Equipped with that direction, agents can just follow OAuth standards: 

1. The agent dynamically registers itself as a client (a process known as Dynamic Client Registration — RFC 7591), 
2. The agent sends the human through a PKCE (Proof Key for Code Exchange) authorization flow (RFC 7636)
3. The human authorizes access, which grants a token to the agent that it can use to make authenticated requests on behalf of the user

Here’s what the authorization flow looks like:

If this authorization flow looks familiar, that’s because it’s what the Model Context Protocol (MCP) uses. We originally built support for this into our MCP server portals product, which proxies and controls access to many MCP servers, to allow the portal to act as the OAuth server. Now, we’re bringing this to all Access apps, so agents can access not only MCP servers that require authorization, but also web pages, web apps, and REST APIs.

Mass upgrading your internal apps to be agent-ready

Upgrading the long tail of internal software to work with agents is a daunting task. In principle, in order to be agent-ready, every internal and external app would ideally have discoverable APIs, a CLI, a well-crafted MCP server, and have adopted the many emerging agent standards.

AI adoption is not something that can wait for everything to be retrofitted. Most organizations have a significant backlog of apps built over many years. And many internal “apps” work great when treated by agents as simple websites. For something like an internal wiki, all you really need is to enable Markdown for Agents, turn on managed OAuth, and agents have what they need to read protected content.

To make the basics work across the widest set of internal applications, we use Managed OAuth. By putting Access in front of your legacy internal apps, you make them agent-ready instantly. No code changes, no retrofitting. Instead, just immediate compatibility.

It’s the user’s agent. No service accounts and tokens needed

Agents need to act on behalf of users inside organizations. One of the biggest anti-patterns we’ve seen is people provisioning service accounts for their agents and MCP servers, authenticated using static credentials. These have their place in simple use cases and quick prototypes, and Cloudflare Access supports service tokens for this purpose.

But the service account approach quickly shows its limits when fine-grained access controls and audit logs are required. We believe that every action an agent performs must be easily attributable to the human who initiated it, and that an agent must only be able to perform actions that its human operator is likewise authorized to do. Service accounts and static credentials become points at which attribution is lost. Agents that launder all of their actions through a service account are susceptible to confused deputy problems and result in audit logs that appear to originate from the agent itself.

For security and accountability, agents must use security primitives capable of expressing this user–agent relationship. OAuth is the industry standard protocol for requesting and delegating access to third parties. It gives agents a way to talk to your APIs on behalf of the user, with a token scoped to the user’s identity, so that access controls correctly apply and audit logs correctly attribute actions to the end user.

Standards for the win: how agents can and should adopt RFC 9728 in their web fetch tools

RFC 9728 is the OAuth standard that makes it possible for agents to discover where and how to authenticate. It standardizes where this information lives and how it’s structured. This RFC became official in April 2025 and was quickly adopted by the Model Context Protocol (MCP), which now requires that both MCP servers and clients support it.

But outside of MCP, agents should adopt RFC 9728 for an even more essential use case: making requests to web pages that are protected behind OAuth and making requests to plain old REST APIs.

Most agents have a tool for making basic HTTP requests to web pages. This is commonly called the “web fetch” tool. It’s similar to using the fetch() API in JavaScript, often with some additional post-processing on the response. It’s what lets you paste a URL into your agent and have your agent go look up the content.

Today, most agents’ web fetch tools won’t do anything with the www-authenticate header that a URL returns. The underlying model might choose to introspect the response headers and figure this out on its own, but the tool itself does not follow www-authenticate, look up /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server, and act as the client in the OAuth flow. But it can, and we strongly believe it should! Agents already do this to act as remote MCP clients.

To demonstrate this, we’ve put up a draft pull request that adapts the web fetch tool in Opencode to show this in action. Before making a request, the adapted tool first checks whether it already has credentials ; if it does, it uses them to make the initial request. If the tool gets back a 401 or a 403 with a www-authenticate header, it asks the user for consent to be sent through the server’s OAuth flow.

Here’s how that OAuth flow works. If you give the agent a URL that is protected by OAuth and complies with RFC 9728, the agent prompts the human for consent to open the authorization flow:

…sending the human to the login page:

…and then to a consent dialog that prompts the human to grant access to the agent:

Once the human grants access to the agent, the agent uses the token it has received to make an authenticated request:

Any agent from Codex to Claude Code to Goose and beyond can implement this, and there’s nothing bespoke to Cloudflare. It’s all built using OAuth standards.

We think this flow is powerful, and that supporting RFC 9728 can help agents with more than just making basic web fetch requests. If a REST API supports RFC 9728 (and the agent does too), the agent has everything it needs to start making authenticated requests against that API. If the REST API supports RFC 9727, then the client can discover a catalog of REST API endpoints on its own, and do even more without additional documentation, agent skills, MCP servers or CLIs. 

Each of these play important roles with agents — Cloudflare itself provides an MCP server for the Cloudflare API (built using Code Mode), Wrangler CLI, and Agent Skills, and a Plugin. But supporting RFC 9728 helps ensure that even when none of these are preinstalled, agents have a clear path forward. If the agent has a sandbox to execute untrusted code, it can just write and execute code that calls the API that the human has granted it access to. We’re working on supporting this for Cloudflare’s own APIs, to help your agents understand how to use Cloudflare.

Coming soon: share one identity provider (IdP) across many Cloudflare accounts

At Cloudflare our own internal apps are deployed to dozens of different Cloudflare accounts, which are all part of an Organization — a newly introduced way for administrators to manage users, configurations, and view analytics across many Cloudflare accounts. We have had the same challenge as many of our customers: each Cloudflare account has to separately configure an IdP, so Cloudflare Access uses our identity provider. It’s critical that this is consistent across an organization — you don’t want one Cloudflare account to inadvertently allow people to sign in just with a one-time PIN, rather than requiring that they authenticate via single-sign on (SSO).

To solve this, we’re currently working on making it possible to share an identity provider across Cloudflare accounts, giving organizations a way to designate a single primary IdP for use across every account in their organization.

As new Cloudflare accounts are created within an organization, administrators will be able to configure a bridge to the primary IdP with a single click, so Access applications across accounts can be protected by one identity provider. This removes the need to manually configure IdPs account by account, which is a process that doesn’t scale for organizations with many teams and individuals each operating their own accounts.

What’s next

Across companies, people in every role and business function are now using agents to build internal apps, and expect their agents to be able to access context from internal apps. We are responding to this step function growth in internal software development by making the Workers Platform and Cloudflare One work better together — so that it is easier to build and secure internal apps on Cloudflare. 

Expect more to come soon, including:

• More direct integration between Cloudflare Access and Cloudflare Workers, without the need to validate JWTs or remember which of many routes a particular Worker is exposed on.
• wrangler dev --tunnel — an easy way to expose your local development server to others when you’re building something new, and want to share it with others before deploying
• A CLI interface for Cloudflare Access and the entire Cloudflare API
• More announcements to come during Agents Week 2026

Enable Managed OAuth for your internal apps behind Cloudflare Access

Managed OAuth is now available, in open beta, to all Cloudflare customers. Head over to the Cloudflare dashboard to enable it for your Access applications. You can use it for any internal app, whether it’s one built on Cloudflare Workers, or hosted elsewhere. And if you haven’t built internal apps on the Workers Platform yet — it’s the fastest way for your team to go from zero to deployed (and protected) in production.