What can go wrong between a working demo and a dependable app—and what you can learn before it happens to yours.
Some of these are reported incidents. Others are vulnerabilities found by researchers. We label the difference, include known fixes and recovery, and link to the original accounts.
SaaStr reported that Replit’s AI agent deleted its production database while the team was building an app, despite instructions to stop making changes. Its account described development and production sharing the same database.
What happened next
SaaStr said it eventually recovered the data. Its follow-up also described Replit’s subsequent work on separating environments and improving rollback controls.
The practical lesson
Keep development away from live data. Restrict agent credentials and test recovery independently of what an assistant says is possible.
An attributed operator account, not an independent audit. It does not establish that current Replit apps have the same setup.
Source published August 2, 2025. Reviewed October 30, 2026.
02Research disclosureJuly 2025
A private app’s sign-in boundary could be bypassed.
Wiz researchers demonstrated that an authentication flaw in Base44 could allow unauthorized access to private applications, including ones configured for SSO. This was a platform-level issue rather than a finding about one customer’s generated code.
What happened next
Wiz reported that Base44/Wix fixed the issue within 24 hours of disclosure and that it verified the fix. Wix reported no evidence of prior malicious exploitation.
The practical lesson
Review who can actually register and access data, including alternate routes. Understand which controls your app owns and which depend on a provider.
A disclosed and remediated vulnerability. It is not evidence of a confirmed customer data breach or a current unpatched flaw.
Source published July 29, 2025. Reviewed October 30, 2026.
03Research disclosureMarch–May 2025
The database allowed more than the app intended.
Researcher Matt Palmer reported that Linkable, a Lovable-built site using Supabase, allowed unauthorized access to user records because database access rules were missing or incorrect. A later test also demonstrated an unauthorized write.
What happened next
The disclosure documents reports to the vendor and further testing in May 2025. We have not established the current state of the affected projects.
The practical lesson
Test database reads and writes without a login and under each user role. A public Supabase key is not itself the flaw; the backend permissions determine what it can access.
The author disclosed working at Replit, a competing builder. This historical researcher account does not establish malicious theft or a problem in every Lovable app.
Source published May 29, 2025. Reviewed October 30, 2026.
04Research disclosureJanuary–February 2026
A live app exposed private messages and agent tokens.
Wiz researchers found that Moltbook’s misconfigured Supabase database allowed unauthenticated access to production data, including private messages and agent authentication tokens. Their report linked the founder’s description of building the platform with AI.
What happened next
Wiz said the operator secured the affected access within hours, with additional write-access issues addressed during the response. The researchers said they deleted the data accessed for the investigation.
The practical lesson
Check read and write permissions separately. Treat exposed authentication tokens as an incident requiring a review of access, revocation and recovery—not just a hidden button.
Researcher-observed exposure, not proof of criminal misuse. The founder’s AI-building claim does not identify which tool or change introduced the misconfiguration.
