Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-285

Discouraged

Improper Authorization

Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

2308 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-7PWR-CFRC-PX4F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-18 21:30 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:31
VLAI
Details

A race condition flaw was found in sssd where the GPO policy is not consistently applied for authenticated users. This may lead to improper authorization issues, granting or denying access to resources inappropriately.

Severity
7.1 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-3758"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-362"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-04-18T19:15:08Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A race condition flaw was found in sssd where the GPO policy is not consistently applied for authenticated users. This may lead to improper authorization issues, granting or denying access to resources inappropriately.",
  "id": "GHSA-7pwr-cfrc-px4f",
  "modified": "2025-11-03T21:31:03Z",
  "published": "2024-04-18T21:30:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3758"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/7302"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1919"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1920"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1921"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1922"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:2571"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:3270"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2023-3758"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2223762"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/02/msg00008.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RV3HIZI3SURBUQKSOOL3XE64OOBQ2HTK"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XEP62IDS7A55D5UHM6GH7QZ7SQFOAPVF"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XMORAO2BDDA5YX4ZLMXDZ7SM6KU47SY5"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7Q55-67M4-X87M

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:48 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:57
VLAI
Details

Truncated access authentication token leads to weakened access control for stored secure application data in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Compute, Snapdragon Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer Electronics Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer IOT, Snapdragon Industrial IOT, Snapdragon IoT, Snapdragon Mobile, Snapdragon Voice & Music, Snapdragon Wearables, Snapdragon Wired Infrastructure and Networking in IPQ8074, MDM9150, MDM9206, MDM9607, MDM9650, MDM9655, MSM8909W, MSM8996AU, QCA8081, QCS405, QCS605, Qualcomm 215, SD 210/SD 212/SD 205, SD 410/12, SD 425, SD 427, SD 430, SD 435, SD 439 / SD 429, SD 450, SD 615/16/SD 415, SD 625, SD 632, SD 636, SD 650/52, SD 712 / SD 710 / SD 670, SD 820, SD 820A, SD 835, SD 845 / SD 850, SD 8CX, SDA660, SDM439, SDM630, SDM660, Snapdragon_High_Med_2016, SXR1130

Severity
7.8 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-13908"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-06-14T17:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Truncated access authentication token leads to weakened access control for stored secure application data in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Compute, Snapdragon Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer Electronics Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer IOT, Snapdragon Industrial IOT, Snapdragon IoT, Snapdragon Mobile, Snapdragon Voice \u0026 Music, Snapdragon Wearables, Snapdragon Wired Infrastructure and Networking in IPQ8074, MDM9150, MDM9206, MDM9607, MDM9650, MDM9655, MSM8909W, MSM8996AU, QCA8081, QCS405, QCS605, Qualcomm 215, SD 210/SD 212/SD 205, SD 410/12, SD 425, SD 427, SD 430, SD 435, SD 439 / SD 429, SD 450, SD 615/16/SD 415, SD 625, SD 632, SD 636, SD 650/52, SD 712 / SD 710 / SD 670, SD 820, SD 820A, SD 835, SD 845 / SD 850, SD 8CX, SDA660, SDM439, SDM630, SDM660, Snapdragon_High_Med_2016, SXR1130",
  "id": "GHSA-7q55-67m4-x87m",
  "modified": "2024-04-04T00:57:44Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T16:48:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-13908"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.qualcomm.com/company/product-security/bulletins"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7QJX-GP9H-65QJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 21:59 – Updated: 2026-06-09 21:59
VLAI
Summary
Dex: Token-exchange endpoint is missing AllowedConnectors enforcement
Details

Summary

server/handlers.go::handleTokenExchange (lines 1804-1893) does not call isConnectorAllowed(client.AllowedConnectors, connID) before issuing tokens, while sibling handlers do. This is a per-client connector ACL gap on the token-exchange endpoint; the redirect-flow paths enforce the same field correctly.

Affected code path

handleTokenExchange reads connector_id from the request body at server/handlers.go:1822. Validators called between read and token issuance:

  • s.getConnector(ctx, connID) at line 1836 - confirms connector exists
  • GrantTypeAllowed(conn.GrantTypes, grantTypeTokenExchange) at line 1842 - confirms connector permits this grant
  • (missing) isConnectorAllowed(client.AllowedConnectors, connID) - never called

Tokens are issued at lines 1887 / 1889, bound to client.ID carrying claims derived from connID.

Sibling handlers DO enforce the check:

  • server/handlers.go::handleConnectorLogin:377 - calls isConnectorAllowed, returns HTTP 403 "Connector not allowed for this client." (line 380).
  • server/oauth2.go::parseAuthorizationRequest:535 - same enforcement for the authorization-code flow.

The doc-string at storage/storage.go:192-194 reads:

AllowedConnectors is a list of connector IDs that the client is allowed to use for authentication. If empty, all connectors are allowed.

The phrasing is unconditional - a permission ACL, not a UX filter.

Impact (concrete scenario)

  • Connector corp-okta - high-trust, gates production access
  • Connector dev-google - low-trust, internal Gmail
  • Client dev-app configured with allowedConnectors: ["dev-google"] (admin intent: dev-app only sees dev-google identities)
  • dev-apps client secret leaks (CI artifact, env file, breached service-account secret store)

Without the bug, the leaked secret would only allow the attacker to mint tokens via dev-google - blast radius bounded by what any dev-google user can already do.

With the bug, an attacker holding their own legitimate corp-okta ID token sends:

POST /token
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

grant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange
&client_id=dev-app
&client_secret=<leaked>
&connector_id=corp-okta
&subject_token=<attackers own corp-okta id token>
&subject_token_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:id_token
&scope=openid+groups

Dex returns an ID token signed by Dex, aud=dev-app, carrying the attackers corp-okta groups. Downstream services trusting tokens issued for dev-app see the attacker as a corp-okta user - a combination the admins policy explicitly forbade.

Severity (self-assessed)

CVSS 3.1 vector: AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N -> 8.7 HIGH.

The PR:H precondition is a real reduction (requires leaked confidential client_secret PLUS attacker holding a subject_token from a forbidden connector that has token-exchange enabled). Defer to your scoring - HIGH and MEDIUM are both defensible.

Affected version

master only - not yet in any released tag. Latest release v2.45.1 (2026-03-03) predates PR #4610 (commit f80a89d, 2026-03-11) which introduced AllowedConnectors. Production deployments on stable releases are NOT affected; deployments pulling from master / nightly images are. A fix can be merged ahead of the next release without an embargo for past versions.

Precedent / lineage

  • PR #4610 (commit f80a89d, 2026-03-11) - added the AllowedConnectors field, isConnectorAllowed, filterConnectors, and the redirect-flow check sites (handleConnectorLogin:377, parseAuthorizationRequest:535). Did not modify handleTokenExchange.
  • PR #4619 (commit 7777773, 2026-03-11, same author, one day earlier) - added GrantTypeAllowed(conn.GrantTypes, grantTypeTokenExchange) to handleTokenExchange. Added a connector-side grant-type gate but did not add the symmetric client-side connector ACL.

Suggested fix

Insert isConnectorAllowed(client.AllowedConnectors, connID) between the existing getConnector / GrantTypeAllowed checks and the connector cast at line 1847, returning HTTP 403 via the token-endpoint error helper. Mirror the existing patterns at handlers.go:377-380 and oauth2.go:535. One-block addition.

Verification methodology

Two-stage verification per IRIS / XBOW pattern (LLM-assisted research with non-LLM verifier as last stage):

  1. Code-mechanics - independent cold-read of server/handlers.go, server/oauth2.go, storage/storage.go confirmed the missing check at handleTokenExchange and the present checks at the two siblings; cross-checked diffs of PR #4610 (f80a89d) and PR #4619 (7777773).
  2. External grounding - cross-checked docs/configuration/customization, docs/guides/token-exchange/, RFC 8693 (which defers per-client policy to implementations), .github/SECURITY.md, GHSA dashboard, huntr.com, and existing issues including #3546 (different mechanism: connector-level disable list, orthogonal to this finding). No prior public report of this gap was found.

semgrep (p/golang + p/security-audit) on server/ returned no ERROR-severity findings - the static tool cannot detect missing-validator gaps; evidence rests on file:line grep + sibling-handler comparison above.

Reporter

Matteo Panzeri (GitHub: @matte1782, contact: matteo1782@gmail.com). Please credit as Matteo Panzeri if a CVE is requested.

Severity
8.7 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/dexidp/dex"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.0.0-20260303131938-204dbb2e3ff7"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-09T21:59:33Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\n`server/handlers.go::handleTokenExchange` (lines 1804-1893) does not call `isConnectorAllowed(client.AllowedConnectors, connID)` before issuing tokens, while sibling handlers do. This is a per-client connector ACL gap on the token-exchange endpoint; the redirect-flow paths enforce the same field correctly.\n\n## Affected code path\n\n`handleTokenExchange` reads `connector_id` from the request body at `server/handlers.go:1822`. Validators called between read and token issuance:\n\n- `s.getConnector(ctx, connID)` at line 1836 - confirms connector exists\n- `GrantTypeAllowed(conn.GrantTypes, grantTypeTokenExchange)` at line 1842 - confirms connector permits this grant\n- **(missing)** `isConnectorAllowed(client.AllowedConnectors, connID)` - never called\n\nTokens are issued at lines 1887 / 1889, bound to `client.ID` carrying claims derived from `connID`.\n\nSibling handlers DO enforce the check:\n\n- `server/handlers.go::handleConnectorLogin:377` - calls `isConnectorAllowed`, returns HTTP 403 \"Connector not allowed for this client.\" (line 380).\n- `server/oauth2.go::parseAuthorizationRequest:535` - same enforcement for the authorization-code flow.\n\nThe doc-string at `storage/storage.go:192-194` reads:\n\n\u003e *AllowedConnectors is a list of connector IDs that the client is allowed to use for authentication. If empty, all connectors are allowed.*\n\nThe phrasing is unconditional - a permission ACL, not a UX filter.\n\n## Impact (concrete scenario)\n\n- Connector `corp-okta` - high-trust, gates production access\n- Connector `dev-google` - low-trust, internal Gmail\n- Client `dev-app` configured with `allowedConnectors: [\"dev-google\"]` (admin intent: dev-app only sees dev-google identities)\n- `dev-app`s client secret leaks (CI artifact, env file, breached service-account secret store)\n\nWithout the bug, the leaked secret would only allow the attacker to mint tokens via `dev-google` - blast radius bounded by what any dev-google user can already do.\n\nWith the bug, an attacker holding their own legitimate `corp-okta` ID token sends:\n\n```\nPOST /token\nContent-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded\n\ngrant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange\n\u0026client_id=dev-app\n\u0026client_secret=\u003cleaked\u003e\n\u0026connector_id=corp-okta\n\u0026subject_token=\u003cattackers own corp-okta id token\u003e\n\u0026subject_token_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:id_token\n\u0026scope=openid+groups\n```\n\nDex returns an ID token signed by Dex, `aud=dev-app`, carrying the attackers `corp-okta` groups. Downstream services trusting tokens issued for `dev-app` see the attacker as a `corp-okta` user - a combination the admins policy explicitly forbade.\n\n## Severity (self-assessed)\n\nCVSS 3.1 vector: `AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N` -\u003e **8.7 HIGH**.\n\nThe `PR:H` precondition is a real reduction (requires leaked confidential client_secret PLUS attacker holding a `subject_token` from a forbidden connector that has token-exchange enabled). Defer to your scoring - HIGH and MEDIUM are both defensible.\n\n## Affected version\n\n`master` only - **not yet in any released tag**. Latest release `v2.45.1` (2026-03-03) predates PR #4610 (commit `f80a89d`, 2026-03-11) which introduced `AllowedConnectors`. Production deployments on stable releases are NOT affected; deployments pulling from master / nightly images are. A fix can be merged ahead of the next release without an embargo for past versions.\n\n## Precedent / lineage\n\n- PR #4610 (commit `f80a89d`, 2026-03-11) - added the `AllowedConnectors` field, `isConnectorAllowed`, `filterConnectors`, and the redirect-flow check sites (`handleConnectorLogin:377`, `parseAuthorizationRequest:535`). Did not modify `handleTokenExchange`.\n- PR #4619 (commit `7777773`, 2026-03-11, same author, one day earlier) - added `GrantTypeAllowed(conn.GrantTypes, grantTypeTokenExchange)` to `handleTokenExchange`. Added a connector-side grant-type gate but did not add the symmetric client-side connector ACL.\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nInsert `isConnectorAllowed(client.AllowedConnectors, connID)` between the existing `getConnector` / `GrantTypeAllowed` checks and the connector cast at line 1847, returning HTTP 403 via the token-endpoint error helper. Mirror the existing patterns at `handlers.go:377-380` and `oauth2.go:535`. One-block addition.\n\n## Verification methodology\n\nTwo-stage verification per IRIS / XBOW pattern (LLM-assisted research with non-LLM verifier as last stage):\n\n1. **Code-mechanics** - independent cold-read of `server/handlers.go`, `server/oauth2.go`, `storage/storage.go` confirmed the missing check at `handleTokenExchange` and the present checks at the two siblings; cross-checked diffs of PR #4610 (`f80a89d`) and PR #4619 (`7777773`).\n2. **External grounding** - cross-checked `docs/configuration/customization`, `docs/guides/token-exchange/`, RFC 8693 (which defers per-client policy to implementations), `.github/SECURITY.md`, GHSA dashboard, huntr.com, and existing issues including #3546 (different mechanism: connector-level disable list, orthogonal to this finding). No prior public report of this gap was found.\n\n`semgrep` (`p/golang` + `p/security-audit`) on `server/` returned no ERROR-severity findings - the static tool cannot detect missing-validator gaps; evidence rests on file:line grep + sibling-handler comparison above.\n\n## Reporter\n\nMatteo Panzeri (GitHub: @matte1782, contact: matteo1782@gmail.com). Please credit as **Matteo Panzeri** if a CVE is requested.",
  "id": "GHSA-7qjx-gp9h-65qj",
  "modified": "2026-06-09T21:59:33Z",
  "published": "2026-06-09T21:59:33Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/dexidp/dex/security/advisories/GHSA-7qjx-gp9h-65qj"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/dexidp/dex/commit/204dbb2e3ff7692af3b7ca4362b1ee46fb43c227"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/dexidp/dex"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Dex: Token-exchange endpoint is missing AllowedConnectors enforcement"
}

GHSA-7R6G-Q2J3-VCF5

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-01 00:30 – Updated: 2025-04-01 00:30
VLAI
Details

Improper authorization in Azure Playwright allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Severity
8.1 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-26683"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-31T22:15:18Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Improper authorization in Azure Playwright allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.",
  "id": "GHSA-7r6g-q2j3-vcf5",
  "modified": "2025-04-01T00:30:33Z",
  "published": "2025-04-01T00:30:33Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-26683"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-26683"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7RM3-4W6J-8XX4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-30 15:31 – Updated: 2024-12-30 18:45
VLAI
Summary
TeamPass mail_me operation authorization issue
Details

TeamPass before 3.1.3.1 does not properly check whether a mail_me (aka action_mail) operation is on behalf of an administrator or manager.

Severity
5.4 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Packagist",
        "name": "nilsteampassnet/teampass"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.1.3.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-50702"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-266",
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2024-12-30T18:06:25Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-12-30T15:15:10Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "TeamPass before 3.1.3.1 does not properly check whether a mail_me (aka action_mail) operation is on behalf of an administrator or manager.",
  "id": "GHSA-7rm3-4w6j-8xx4",
  "modified": "2024-12-30T18:45:33Z",
  "published": "2024-12-30T15:31:59Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50702"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/nilsteampassnet/TeamPass/commit/35e2b479f2379545b4132bc30a9d052ba7018bf9"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/nilsteampassnet/TeamPass"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/nilsteampassnet/TeamPass/compare/3.1.2...3.1.3.1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/nilsteampassnet/TeamPass/compare/3.1.3...3.1.3.1"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "TeamPass mail_me operation authorization issue"
}

GHSA-7VHG-93P3-4HVQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 18:30 – Updated: 2026-06-09 18:30
VLAI
Details

Improper authorization in Microsoft PowerToys allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.

Severity
7.8 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-42902"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-09T17:17:09Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Improper authorization in Microsoft PowerToys allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.",
  "id": "GHSA-7vhg-93p3-4hvq",
  "modified": "2026-06-09T18:30:44Z",
  "published": "2026-06-09T18:30:44Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42902"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42902"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7WPH-75G6-R67W

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-08 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-15 00:00
VLAI
Details

Missing caller check in Smart Things prior to version 1.7.85.12 allows attacker to access senstive information remotely using javascript interface API.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-30746"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-668",
      "CWE-862"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-06-07T19:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Missing caller check in Smart Things prior to version 1.7.85.12 allows attacker to access senstive information remotely using javascript interface API.",
  "id": "GHSA-7wph-75g6-r67w",
  "modified": "2022-06-15T00:00:23Z",
  "published": "2022-06-08T00:00:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-30746"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.samsungmobile.com/serviceWeb.smsb?year=2022\u0026month=6"
    }
  ],
  "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-7XCR-6P4F-Q66V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-10 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-15 00:00
VLAI
Details

Improper authorization in UPI payment in Samsung Pass prior to version 4.0.04.10 allows physical attackers to access account list without authentication.

Severity
2.4 (Low)
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-36876"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-09-09T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "Improper authorization in UPI payment in Samsung Pass prior to version 4.0.04.10 allows physical attackers to access account list without authentication.",
  "id": "GHSA-7xcr-6p4f-q66v",
  "modified": "2022-09-15T00:00:17Z",
  "published": "2022-09-10T00:00:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36876"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.samsungmobile.com/serviceWeb.smsb?year=2022\u0026month=09"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.samsungmobile.com/serviceWeb.smsb?year==2022\u0026month=09"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7XH8-5GM5-5Q2F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:28 – Updated: 2022-08-13 00:00
VLAI
Details

The “List View” function of ShinHer StudyOnline System is not under authority control. After logging in with user’s privilege, remote attackers can access the content of other users’ message boards by crafting URL parameters.

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-42332"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-10-15T12:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The \u201cList View\u201d function of ShinHer StudyOnline System is not under authority control. After logging in with user\u2019s privilege, remote attackers can access the content of other users\u2019 message boards by crafting URL parameters.",
  "id": "GHSA-7xh8-5gm5-5q2f",
  "modified": "2022-08-13T00:00:38Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T22:28:24Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42332"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/tw/cp-132-5202-49681-1.html"
    }
  ],
  "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-822F-XQJ8-8W45

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-07 06:30 – Updated: 2025-11-07 06:30
VLAI
Details

The IDonate – Blood Donation, Request And Donor Management System plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation due to a missing capability check on the idonate_donor_password() function in versions 2.1.5 to 2.1.9. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to initiate a password reset for any user (including administrators) and elevate their privileges for full site takeover.

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-4519"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-11-07T05:16:04Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "The IDonate \u2013 Blood Donation, Request And Donor Management System plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation due to a missing capability check on the idonate_donor_password() function in versions 2.1.5 to 2.1.9. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to initiate a password reset for any user (including administrators) and elevate their privileges for full site takeover.",
  "id": "GHSA-822f-xqj8-8w45",
  "modified": "2025-11-07T06:30:28Z",
  "published": "2025-11-07T06:30:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4519"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/idonate/tags/2.1.9/src/Helpers/DonorFunctions.php#L410"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3334424/idonate/tags/2.1.10/src/Helpers/DonorFunctions.php?old=3279142\u0026old_path=idonate%2Ftags%2F2.1.9%2Fsrc%2FHelpers%2FDonorFunctions.php"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/idonate/#developers"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/596aef67-582a-4506-bae9-c7be1899e47a?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
  • Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
  • Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.

Mitigation MIT-4.4
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
  • For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
  • For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
  • One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
System Configuration Installation

Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs

In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.

CAPEC-104: Cross Zone Scripting

An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security.

CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing

An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.

CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values

The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.

CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files

An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.

CAPEC-39: Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens

In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated. If client or server-side application components reinterpret that data as authentication tokens or data (such as store item pricing or wallet information) then even opaquely manipulating that data may bear fruit for an Attacker. In this pattern an attacker undermines the assumption that client side tokens have been adequately protected from tampering through use of encryption or obfuscation.

CAPEC-402: Bypassing ATA Password Security

An adversary exploits a weakness in ATA security on a drive to gain access to the information the drive contains without supplying the proper credentials. ATA Security is often employed to protect hard disk information from unauthorized access. The mechanism requires the user to type in a password before the BIOS is allowed access to drive contents. Some implementations of ATA security will accept the ATA command to update the password without the user having authenticated with the BIOS. This occurs because the security mechanism assumes the user has first authenticated via the BIOS prior to sending commands to the drive. Various methods exist for exploiting this flaw, the most common being installing the ATA protected drive into a system lacking ATA security features (a.k.a. hot swapping). Once the drive is installed into the new system the BIOS can be used to reset the drive password.

CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links

This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.

CAPEC-5: Blue Boxing

This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.

{'xhtml:b': 'This attack pattern is included in CAPEC for historical purposes.'}

CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry

SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.

CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction

This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.

CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)

This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.

CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries

An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization to gather system-specific data and sensitive information within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist). These contain information about the system configuration, software, operating system, and security. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.

CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)

An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.

CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls

An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.

CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables

This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.

CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing

An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.

← Back to the CWE list