CWE-201
AllowedInsertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.
742 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-WM3W-8RRP-J577
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-20 23:27 – Updated: 2026-08-04 12:55Impact
In affected versions, CookieJar does not preserve whether a response cookie was set without a Domain attribute or with an empty one. A cookie without Domain is host-only and must be returned only to the exact host that set it. Under current cookie processing rules, an empty Domain value is also host-only. Guzzle instead stores the request host in the cookie's Domain field and later applies ordinary domain matching, as though the server had supplied a valid domain. For example, a host-only sid=secret cookie set by example.com can subsequently be sent to child.example.com. FileCookieJar and SessionCookieJar also persist the request host without recording the host-only state, so reloading a jar preserves the widened scope.
An attacker who controls or can observe a child host can therefore receive cookies that were intended only for its parent host. Depending on the cookie, this can disclose session identifiers, authorization tokens, or other sensitive state. Exploitation requires the application to enable Guzzle's cookie support, reuse the same built-in cookie jar, receive a host-only cookie from a parent host, and later make a matching request to a less-trusted child host. The cookie's other restrictions still apply. Its path must match, a Secure cookie is sent only over a secure connection, and an expired cookie is not sent.
Applications that do not use Guzzle's cookie support are not affected. Applications are also not affected by this disclosure if they use a separate jar for every host or trust boundary, never request a less-trusted subdomain with the same jar, or only store cookies carrying a valid, non-empty Domain attribute. The incorrect behavior occurs between an otherwise valid parent host and its subdomains.
Patches
The issue is patched in 7.15.1 and later. Starting in that release, Guzzle records whether a response cookie is host-only and matches it only against the exact host. The host-only flag is part of cookie identity for replacement and response-driven deletion. Cookies carrying a valid, non-empty Domain attribute retain their existing domain-matching behavior. A host-only cookie can coexist with an explicit-domain cookie having the same name, domain string, and path.
The built-in persistent jars now write a boolean HostOnly marker for every stored cookie record. They reject records where that marker is missing or is not a boolean, and validate all records before changing the live jar. Persisted cookie records written by an older version are therefore rejected rather than silently interpreted with an unsafe scope. Loading non-empty file or session data written without this marker throws a RuntimeException until the data is deleted, regenerated, or correctly annotated. Versions before 7.15.1 are affected.
Workarounds
If you cannot upgrade immediately, do not reuse one CookieJar instance across parent and child hosts with different trust levels. Use a separate cookie jar for each host or trust boundary, disable cookie handling for requests to less-trusted hosts, or avoid making those requests through a client configured with a shared jar. In particular, avoid new Client(['cookies' => true]) for a client that may contact both a trusted parent host and less-trusted subdomains, because that option creates one jar for the whole client.
When upgrading, delete or rotate existing FileCookieJar and SessionCookieJar data that contains cookie records written without a HostOnly marker. Records may instead be annotated manually only when the original presence or absence of the cookie's Domain attribute is known. The stored domain string is not sufficient to infer it safely.
References
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10025.html#section-4.1.2.3
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10025.html#section-5.7
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10025.html#section-5.8.3
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "guzzlehttp/guzzle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.15.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-67355"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201",
"CWE-941"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-20T23:27:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nIn affected versions, `CookieJar` does not preserve whether a response cookie was set without a `Domain` attribute or with an empty one. A cookie without `Domain` is host-only and must be returned only to the exact host that set it. Under current cookie processing rules, an empty `Domain` value is also host-only. Guzzle instead stores the request host in the cookie\u0027s `Domain` field and later applies ordinary domain matching, as though the server had supplied a valid domain. For example, a host-only `sid=secret` cookie set by `example.com` can subsequently be sent to `child.example.com`. `FileCookieJar` and `SessionCookieJar` also persist the request host without recording the host-only state, so reloading a jar preserves the widened scope.\n\nAn attacker who controls or can observe a child host can therefore receive cookies that were intended only for its parent host. Depending on the cookie, this can disclose session identifiers, authorization tokens, or other sensitive state. Exploitation requires the application to enable Guzzle\u0027s cookie support, reuse the same built-in cookie jar, receive a host-only cookie from a parent host, and later make a matching request to a less-trusted child host. The cookie\u0027s other restrictions still apply. Its path must match, a `Secure` cookie is sent only over a secure connection, and an expired cookie is not sent.\n\nApplications that do not use Guzzle\u0027s cookie support are not affected. Applications are also not affected by this disclosure if they use a separate jar for every host or trust boundary, never request a less-trusted subdomain with the same jar, or only store cookies carrying a valid, non-empty `Domain` attribute. The incorrect behavior occurs between an otherwise valid parent host and its subdomains.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue is patched in `7.15.1` and later. Starting in that release, Guzzle records whether a response cookie is host-only and matches it only against the exact host. The host-only flag is part of cookie identity for replacement and response-driven deletion. Cookies carrying a valid, non-empty `Domain` attribute retain their existing domain-matching behavior. A host-only cookie can coexist with an explicit-domain cookie having the same name, domain string, and path.\n\nThe built-in persistent jars now write a boolean `HostOnly` marker for every stored cookie record. They reject records where that marker is missing or is not a boolean, and validate all records before changing the live jar. Persisted cookie records written by an older version are therefore rejected rather than silently interpreted with an unsafe scope. Loading non-empty file or session data written without this marker throws a `RuntimeException` until the data is deleted, regenerated, or correctly annotated. Versions before `7.15.1` are affected.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf you cannot upgrade immediately, do not reuse one `CookieJar` instance across parent and child hosts with different trust levels. Use a separate cookie jar for each host or trust boundary, disable cookie handling for requests to less-trusted hosts, or avoid making those requests through a client configured with a shared jar. In particular, avoid `new Client([\u0027cookies\u0027 =\u003e true])` for a client that may contact both a trusted parent host and less-trusted subdomains, because that option creates one jar for the whole client.\n\nWhen upgrading, delete or rotate existing `FileCookieJar` and `SessionCookieJar` data that contains cookie records written without a `HostOnly` marker. Records may instead be annotated manually only when the original presence or absence of the cookie\u0027s `Domain` attribute is known. The stored domain string is not sufficient to infer it safely.\n\n### References\n\n* https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10025.html#section-4.1.2.3\n* https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10025.html#section-5.7\n* https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10025.html#section-5.8.3",
"id": "GHSA-wm3w-8rrp-j577",
"modified": "2026-08-04T12:55:33Z",
"published": "2026-07-20T23:27:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle/security/advisories/GHSA-wm3w-8rrp-j577"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-67355"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle/pull/3901"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle/commit/7b68220d6543f6f80fe62e633361fc9d4ead14d4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle/releases/tag/7.15.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/guzzlehttp-guzzle-before-host-only-cookie-scope"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Guzzle: Host-only cookie scope is not preserved"
}
GHSA-WMH9-52HX-XJ2C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-02 00:01 – Updated: 2022-09-10 00:00A vulnerability was found in the Linux kernel, where accessing a deallocated instance in printer_ioctl() printer_ioctl() tries to access of a printer_dev instance. However, use-after-free arises because it had been freed by gprinter_free().
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-27784"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201",
"CWE-416"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-01T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in the Linux kernel, where accessing a deallocated instance in printer_ioctl() printer_ioctl() tries to access of a printer_dev instance. However, use-after-free arises because it had been freed by gprinter_free().",
"id": "GHSA-wmh9-52hx-xj2c",
"modified": "2022-09-10T00:00:31Z",
"published": "2022-09-02T00:01:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-27784"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e8d5f92b8d30bb4ade76494490c3c065e12411b1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WQ23-6P2Q-RGC7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-22 18:30 – Updated: 2026-04-23 18:32Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Johan Jonk Stenström Cookies and Content Security Policy cookies-and-content-security-policy allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.This issue affects Cookies and Content Security Policy: from n/a through <= 2.34.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-63019"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-22T17:15:59Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Johan Jonk Stenstr\u00f6m Cookies and Content Security Policy cookies-and-content-security-policy allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.This issue affects Cookies and Content Security Policy: from n/a through \u003c= 2.34.",
"id": "GHSA-wq23-6p2q-rgc7",
"modified": "2026-04-23T18:32:23Z",
"published": "2026-01-22T18:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-63019"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/cookies-and-content-security-policy/vulnerability/wordpress-cookies-and-content-security-policy-plugin-2-34-sensitive-data-exposure-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WRM3-H327-J8WH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-06 15:30 – Updated: 2023-11-06 15:30An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting from 11.6 before 16.3.6, all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.4.2, all versions starting from 16.5 before 16.5.1. It was possible for an unauthorised project or group member to read the CI/CD variables using the custom project templates.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-3399"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201",
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-06T13:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting from 11.6 before 16.3.6, all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.4.2, all versions starting from 16.5 before 16.5.1. It was possible for an unauthorised project or group member to read the CI/CD variables using the custom project templates.",
"id": "GHSA-wrm3-h327-j8wh",
"modified": "2023-11-06T15:30:31Z",
"published": "2023-11-06T15:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3399"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2021616"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/416244"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WRR4-782V-JHWH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-25 17:46 – Updated: 2026-06-25 17:46Summary
The /list_relationships and /retrieve_graph_neighborhood endpoints call getAuthenticatedUserId (confirming a valid session exists) but do not pass the resolved user ID into the Supabase query as an .eq("user_id", userId) filter. As a result, queries return rows from all users rather than scoping to the authenticated caller's data.
Affected code
/list_relationships (src/actions.ts):
- Calls getAuthenticatedUserId but does not apply .eq("user_id", userId) to the relationships query
- Uses .or() string interpolation for entity ID matching without input validation
/retrieve_graph_neighborhood (src/actions.ts):
- Same pattern: auth resolved, user ID not applied to query filter
Affected versions
v0.13.0
Prerequisites
- A valid authentication token for the Neotoma instance (attacker must have a legitimate account on the same instance)
- A known entity ID belonging to another user (~96 bits of entropy — brute-force not practical)
An unauthenticated caller is rejected at the auth middleware layer. The gap requires a second user account on the instance.
Impact
An authenticated user with a known cross-user entity ID can retrieve relationship edges and graph neighborhood data belonging to another user. No write capability is exposed.
Severity
Low under current conditions — no multi-tenant deployments exist. Escalates to Medium the moment two or more user accounts share an instance.
Remediation
- Add
.eq("user_id", userId)to all Supabase queries in both handlers - Validate entity ID inputs with
isNeotomaEntityIdbefore query construction - Replace
.or()string interpolation with separate scoped.eq()calls
Fix tracked in #365 (list_relationships) and #366 (retrieve_graph_neighborhood). Gate gap tracked in #372.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "neotoma"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.14.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-25T17:46:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe `/list_relationships` and `/retrieve_graph_neighborhood` endpoints call `getAuthenticatedUserId` (confirming a valid session exists) but do not pass the resolved user ID into the Supabase query as an `.eq(\"user_id\", userId)` filter. As a result, queries return rows from all users rather than scoping to the authenticated caller\u0027s data.\n\n## Affected code\n\n**`/list_relationships`** (`src/actions.ts`):\n- Calls `getAuthenticatedUserId` but does not apply `.eq(\"user_id\", userId)` to the relationships query\n- Uses `.or()` string interpolation for entity ID matching without input validation\n\n**`/retrieve_graph_neighborhood`** (`src/actions.ts`):\n- Same pattern: auth resolved, user ID not applied to query filter\n\n## Affected versions\n\nv0.13.0\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n1. A valid authentication token for the Neotoma instance (attacker must have a legitimate account on the same instance)\n2. A known entity ID belonging to another user (~96 bits of entropy \u2014 brute-force not practical)\n\nAn unauthenticated caller is rejected at the auth middleware layer. The gap requires a second user account on the instance.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn authenticated user with a known cross-user entity ID can retrieve relationship edges and graph neighborhood data belonging to another user. No write capability is exposed.\n\n## Severity\n\nLow under current conditions \u2014 no multi-tenant deployments exist. Escalates to Medium the moment two or more user accounts share an instance.\n\n## Remediation\n\n1. Add `.eq(\"user_id\", userId)` to all Supabase queries in both handlers\n2. Validate entity ID inputs with `isNeotomaEntityId` before query construction\n3. Replace `.or()` string interpolation with separate scoped `.eq()` calls\n\nFix tracked in #365 (list_relationships) and #366 (retrieve_graph_neighborhood). Gate gap tracked in #372.",
"id": "GHSA-wrr4-782v-jhwh",
"modified": "2026-06-25T17:46:49Z",
"published": "2026-06-25T17:46:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/markmhendrickson/neotoma/security/advisories/GHSA-wrr4-782v-jhwh"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/markmhendrickson/neotoma/issues/365"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/markmhendrickson/neotoma/issues/366"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/markmhendrickson/neotoma/issues/372"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/markmhendrickson/neotoma"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "neotoma has tenant isolation gap in relationship query endpoints"
}
GHSA-WV7V-X5C8-PRV7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-25 15:32 – Updated: 2026-06-25 15:32Unauthenticated Sensitive Data Exposure in Vitepos <= 3.4.2 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54841"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-25T14:16:48Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Sensitive Data Exposure in Vitepos \u003c= 3.4.2 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-wv7v-x5c8-prv7",
"modified": "2026-06-25T15:32:01Z",
"published": "2026-06-25T15:32:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54841"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/vitepos-lite/vulnerability/wordpress-vitepos-plugin-3-4-2-sensitive-data-exposure-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WXM7-6PXH-23QX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-27 09:31 – Updated: 2026-05-27 09:31Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Tom GenerateBlocks allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.
This issue affects GenerateBlocks: from n/a through 2.1.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48877"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-27T09:16:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Tom GenerateBlocks allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.\n\nThis issue affects GenerateBlocks: from n/a through 2.1.0.",
"id": "GHSA-wxm7-6pxh-23qx",
"modified": "2026-05-27T09:31:17Z",
"published": "2026-05-27T09:31:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48877"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/generateblocks/vulnerability/wordpress-generateblocks-plugin-2-1-0-sensitive-data-exposure-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WXR4-47M6-332V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-31 15:32 – Updated: 2026-07-31 15:32Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Flipper Code WP Maps allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.
This issue affects WP Maps: from n/a through 4.9.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28144"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-31T14:16:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Flipper Code WP Maps allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.\n\nThis issue affects WP Maps: from n/a through 4.9.6.",
"id": "GHSA-wxr4-47m6-332v",
"modified": "2026-07-31T15:32:49Z",
"published": "2026-07-31T15:32:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28144"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-google-map-plugin/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-maps-plugin-4-9-6-sensitive-data-exposure-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X3CC-5QRM-92GC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-02 03:31 – Updated: 2025-12-02 15:30In GPU pdma, there is a possible information disclosure due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS10117741; Issue ID: MSV-4538.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-20789"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-02T03:16:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In GPU pdma, there is a possible information disclosure due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS10117741; Issue ID: MSV-4538.",
"id": "GHSA-x3cc-5qrm-92gc",
"modified": "2025-12-02T15:30:31Z",
"published": "2025-12-02T03:31:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-20789"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://corp.mediatek.com/product-security-bulletin/December-2025"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X567-4GGX-Q7G2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-14 12:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Brainstorm Force SureDash allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data. This issue affects SureDash: from n/a through 1.1.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-54685"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-201"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-14T11:15:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data vulnerability in Brainstorm Force SureDash allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data. This issue affects SureDash: from n/a through 1.1.0.",
"id": "GHSA-x567-4ggx-q7g2",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:50Z",
"published": "2025-08-14T12:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-54685"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/suredash/vulnerability/wordpress-suredash-plugin-1-1-0-sensitive-data-exposure-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Specify which data in the software should be regarded as sensitive. Consider which types of users should have access to which types of data.
Mitigation
Ensure that any possibly sensitive data specified in the requirements is verified with designers to ensure that it is either a calculated risk or mitigated elsewhere. Any information that is not necessary to the functionality should be removed in order to lower both the overhead and the possibility of security sensitive data being sent.
Mitigation
Setup default error messages so that unexpected errors do not disclose sensitive information.
Mitigation MIT-46
Strategy: Separation of Privilege
- Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
- Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
CAPEC-12: Choosing Message Identifier
This pattern of attack is defined by the selection of messages distributed via multicast or public information channels that are intended for another client by determining the parameter value assigned to that client. This attack allows the adversary to gain access to potentially privileged information, and to possibly perpetrate other attacks through the distribution means by impersonation. If the channel/message being manipulated is an input rather than output mechanism for the system, (such as a command bus), this style of attack could be used to change the adversary's identifier to more a privileged one.
CAPEC-217: Exploiting Incorrectly Configured SSL/TLS
An adversary takes advantage of incorrectly configured SSL/TLS communications that enables access to data intended to be encrypted. The adversary may also use this type of attack to inject commands or other traffic into the encrypted stream to cause compromise of either the client or server.
CAPEC-612: WiFi MAC Address Tracking
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively listens for WiFi messages and logs the associated Media Access Control (MAC) addresses. These addresses are intended to be unique to each wireless device (although they can be configured and changed by software). Once the attacker is able to associate a MAC address with a particular user or set of users (for example, when attending a public event), the attacker can then scan for that MAC address to track that user in the future.
CAPEC-613: WiFi SSID Tracking
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively listens for WiFi management frame messages containing the Service Set Identifier (SSID) for the WiFi network. These messages are frequently transmitted by WiFi access points (e.g., the retransmission device) as well as by clients that are accessing the network (e.g., the handset/mobile device). Once the attacker is able to associate an SSID with a particular user or set of users (for example, when attending a public event), the attacker can then scan for this SSID to track that user in the future.
CAPEC-618: Cellular Broadcast Message Request
In this attack scenario, the attacker uses knowledge of the target’s mobile phone number (i.e., the number associated with the SIM used in the retransmission device) to cause the cellular network to send broadcast messages to alert the mobile device. Since the network knows which cell tower the target’s mobile device is attached to, the broadcast messages are only sent in the Location Area Code (LAC) where the target is currently located. By triggering the cellular broadcast message and then listening for the presence or absence of that message, an attacker could verify that the target is in (or not in) a given location.
CAPEC-619: Signal Strength Tracking
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively monitors the signal strength of the target’s cellular RF signal or WiFi RF signal and uses the strength of the signal (with directional antennas and/or from multiple listening points at once) to identify the source location of the signal. Obtaining the signal of the target can be accomplished through multiple techniques such as through Cellular Broadcast Message Request or through the use of IMSI Tracking or WiFi MAC Address Tracking.
CAPEC-621: Analysis of Packet Timing and Sizes
An attacker may intercept and log encrypted transmissions for the purpose of analyzing metadata such as packet timing and sizes. Although the actual data may be encrypted, this metadata may reveal valuable information to an attacker. Note that this attack is applicable to VOIP data as well as application data, especially for interactive apps that require precise timing and low-latency (e.g. thin-clients).
CAPEC-622: Electromagnetic Side-Channel Attack
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively monitors electromagnetic emanations that are produced by the targeted electronic device as an unintentional side-effect of its processing. From these emanations, the attacker derives information about the data that is being processed (e.g. the attacker can recover cryptographic keys by monitoring emanations associated with cryptographic processing). This style of attack requires proximal access to the device, however attacks have been demonstrated at public conferences that work at distances of up to 10-15 feet. There have not been any significant studies to determine the maximum practical distance for such attacks. Since the attack is passive, it is nearly impossible to detect and the targeted device will continue to operate as normal after a successful attack.
CAPEC-623: Compromising Emanations Attack
Compromising Emanations (CE) are defined as unintentional signals which an attacker may intercept and analyze to disclose the information processed by the targeted equipment. Commercial mobile devices and retransmission devices have displays, buttons, microchips, and radios that emit mechanical emissions in the form of sound or vibrations. Capturing these emissions can help an adversary understand what the device is doing.