CWE-285
DiscouragedImproper Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
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-969P-8QF6-MRVC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-12 00:00 – Updated: 2023-06-23 21:30Improper Authorization vulnerability in Link Sharing prior to version 12.4.00.3 allows attackers to open protected activity via PreconditionActivity.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-24002"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-11T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization vulnerability in Link Sharing prior to version 12.4.00.3 allows attackers to open protected activity via PreconditionActivity.",
"id": "GHSA-969p-8qf6-mrvc",
"modified": "2023-06-23T21:30:26Z",
"published": "2022-02-12T00:00:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.samsungmobile.com/serviceWeb.smsb?year=2022\u0026month=2"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-9722-9J67-VJCR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-08 22:21 – Updated: 2024-10-08 22:21Due to the order in which permissions were processed, some statements, filters and computations could lead to leaking field values or record contents to users without the required permissions. This behavior could be triggered in different scenarios:
-
When performing a
SELECToperation on a table, the values that would be returned were iterated over, field permissions would be validated and any unauthorized value would be removed from the result returned. However, performing aSELECT VALUEoperation (e.g.SELECT VALUE private FROM data) would result in a non-iterable value, which would not be removed from the returned result. -
When aliasing a field (e.g.
SELECT private AS public FROM data) for which the user did not haveSELECTpermissions within aSELECTquery, permissions would be checked against the field of the resulting document containing the aliased field instead of the original document containing the original field. As a consequence, the original field value would be returned as the returned field would not match the original field where permissions had been defined. -
When calling a function in the context of a
SELECTquery and passing a field with permissions as an argument to the function (e.g.SELECT string::lowercase(private) FROM data), the function would receive the field value before it had been removed from the document due toSELECTpermissions. As a result, the function would have access to the value of the field regardless of field permissions. This case includes functions called from within events and other clauses that support function calling. -
When executing a query containing a
WHEREclause filtering records by a field that the querying user does not have access toSELECT(e.g.SELECT public FROM data WHERE private ~ "secret"), the response of that query would still take the value of the field into account. Even though the value of the protected field would not be returned, this behavior could be used as a side channel by the querying user to infer information about the value of the field. -
When performing
UPDATEorDELETEoperations over a table with a user that had those permissions but noSELECTpermission, theRETURN BEFOREclause could be used (e.g.DELETE data RETURN BEFORE) to read the contents of the records prior to the authorized update or the deletion despite the querying user not being authorized to performSELECToperations. -
When performing
UPDATEoperations on a table for which the user hadSELECTandUPDATEpermissions, theSETclause could reference fields that the user hadUPDATEbut noSELECTpermission for (e.g.UPDATE data SET public = private) in order to update the value of a field that the user had permission toSELECTto the value of another field for which the user did not.
Impact
Clients that were authorized by table permissions to execute SELECT statements for a table but were not authorized by field permissions to run SELECT queries for a specific field could still have been able to gain knowledge of the value of that field. Additionally, clients that were authorized to execute UPDATE or DELETE statements for a table but not authorized to execute SELECT statements for the same table may have been able to gain knowledge of the contents of records in that table. This could only be exploited by users who were already authorized to execute queries on the database with the affected table or field.
Due to its relationship with table and field permissions, which apply mainly to record users rather than system users, this issue mostly affects users relying on SurrealDB as a backend-as-a-service rather than SurrealDB as a traditional database backend.
Patches
The behavior when evaluating table or field permissions and filtering records or fields as a result of those evaluations has been improved to consider permissions before any changes to the document have been made and, when relevant, permissions after changes to the document have taken place. When a user is unauthorized to view record contents and field values by permissions, the returned documents will behave as if the record or field did not exist in order to prevent leaking any information.
- Version 2.0.4 and later are not affected by this issue.
Workarounds
Users affected by this issue and unable to update should not rely on the authorization provided by field permissions when it comes to the SELECT permission. Instead, read access to fields in affected versions should be restricted at the table level. When allowing the UPDATE or DELETE operations for records via table permissions, users should not rely of the authorization provided by the SELECT permission. Instead, users should not allow clients to UPDATE or DELETE records that they should not be able to view.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "surrealdb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "surrealdb-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-10-08T22:21:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Due to the order in which permissions were processed, some statements, filters and computations could lead to leaking field values or record contents to users without the required permissions. This behavior could be triggered in different scenarios:\n\n- When performing a `SELECT` operation on a table, the values that would be returned were iterated over, field permissions would be validated and any unauthorized value would be removed from the result returned. However, performing a `SELECT VALUE` operation (e.g. `SELECT VALUE private FROM data`) would result in a non-iterable value, which would not be removed from the returned result.\n\n- When aliasing a field (e.g. `SELECT private AS public FROM data`) for which the user did not have `SELECT` permissions within a `SELECT` query, permissions would be checked against the field of the resulting document containing the aliased field instead of the original document containing the original field. As a consequence, the original field value would be returned as the returned field would not match the original field where permissions had been defined.\n\n- When calling a function in the context of a `SELECT` query and passing a field with permissions as an argument to the function (e.g. `SELECT string::lowercase(private) FROM data`), the function would receive the field value before it had been removed from the document due to `SELECT` permissions. As a result, the function would have access to the value of the field regardless of field permissions. This case includes functions called from within events and other clauses that support function calling.\n\n- When executing a query containing a `WHERE` clause filtering records by a field that the querying user does not have access to `SELECT` (e.g. `SELECT public FROM data WHERE private ~ \"secret\"`), the response of that query would still take the value of the field into account. Even though the value of the protected field would not be returned, this behavior could be used as a side channel by the querying user to infer information about the value of the field.\n\n- When performing `UPDATE` or `DELETE` operations over a table with a user that had those permissions but no `SELECT` permission, the `RETURN BEFORE` clause could be used (e.g. `DELETE data RETURN BEFORE`) to read the contents of the records prior to the authorized update or the deletion despite the querying user not being authorized to perform `SELECT` operations.\n\n- When performing `UPDATE` operations on a table for which the user had `SELECT` and `UPDATE` permissions, the `SET` clause could reference fields that the user had `UPDATE` but no `SELECT` permission for (e.g. `UPDATE data SET public = private`) in order to update the value of a field that the user had permission to `SELECT` to the value of another field for which the user did not.\n\n### Impact\n\nClients that were authorized by table permissions to execute `SELECT` statements for a table but were not authorized by field permissions to run `SELECT` queries for a specific field could still have been able to gain knowledge of the value of that field. Additionally, clients that were authorized to execute `UPDATE` or `DELETE` statements for a table but not authorized to execute `SELECT` statements for the same table may have been able to gain knowledge of the contents of records in that table. This could only be exploited by users who were already authorized to execute queries on the database with the affected table or field.\n\nDue to its relationship with table and field permissions, which apply mainly to record users rather than system users, this issue mostly affects users relying on SurrealDB as a backend-as-a-service rather than SurrealDB as a traditional database backend.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe behavior when evaluating table or field permissions and filtering records or fields as a result of those evaluations has been improved to consider permissions before any changes to the document have been made and, when relevant, permissions after changes to the document have taken place. When a user is unauthorized to view record contents and field values by permissions, the returned documents will behave as if the record or field did not exist in order to prevent leaking any information.\n\n- Version 2.0.4 and later are not affected by this issue.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nUsers affected by this issue and unable to update should not rely on the authorization provided by field permissions when it comes to the `SELECT` permission. Instead, read access to fields in affected versions should be restricted at the table level. When allowing the `UPDATE` or `DELETE` operations for records via table permissions, users should not rely of the authorization provided by the `SELECT` permission. Instead, users should not allow clients to `UPDATE` or `DELETE` records that they should not be able to view.\n",
"id": "GHSA-9722-9j67-vjcr",
"modified": "2024-10-08T22:21:09Z",
"published": "2024-10-08T22:21:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/security/advisories/GHSA-9722-9j67-vjcr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/issues/2161"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/issues/3924"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/pull/4785"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/pull/4800"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/pull/4873"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/commit/439ab99e15314ec5cf87047bf58246db646e3f8c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/commit/c382fa158dc84b329328606f663efe574f102a7d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/commit/e75e7736b3a028c4b6a4a4bdf00791d76f77e339"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://surrealdb.com/docs/surrealdb/security/summary#permissions"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://surrealdb.com/docs/surrealql/statements/define/field#setting-permissions-on-fields"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://surrealdb.com/docs/surrealql/statements/define/table#defining-permissions"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Improper Authorization in Select Permissions"
}
GHSA-97GQ-4JQF-CVGM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-08 03:30 – Updated: 2024-09-29 00:30The ACL (Access Control List) of SAP Message Server - versions KERNEL 7.22, KERNEL 7.53, KERNEL 7.54, KERNEL 7.77, RNL64UC 7.22, RNL64UC 7.22EXT, RNL64UC 7.53, KRNL64NUC 7.22, KRNL64NUC 7.22EXT, can be bypassed in certain conditions, which may enable an authenticated malicious user to enter the network of the SAP systems served by the attacked SAP Message server. This may lead to unauthorized read and write of data as well as rendering the system unavailable.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-37491"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-08T01:15:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The ACL (Access\u00a0Control\u00a0List) of SAP Message Server - versions KERNEL 7.22, KERNEL 7.53, KERNEL 7.54, KERNEL 7.77, RNL64UC 7.22, RNL64UC 7.22EXT, RNL64UC 7.53, KRNL64NUC 7.22, KRNL64NUC 7.22EXT, can be bypassed in certain conditions, which may enable an authenticated malicious user to enter the network of the SAP systems served by the attacked SAP Message server. This may lead to unauthorized read and write of data as well as rendering the system unavailable.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-97gq-4jqf-cvgm",
"modified": "2024-09-29T00:30:57Z",
"published": "2023-08-08T03:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-37491"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3344295"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sap.com/documents/2022/02/fa865ea4-167e-0010-bca6-c68f7e60039b.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9895-G6X5-XWCP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-06 21:30 – Updated: 2022-12-12 22:25Quarkus CORS filter allows simple GET and POST requests with invalid Origin to proceed. Simple GET or POST requests made with XMLHttpRequest are the ones which have no event listeners registered on the object returned by the XMLHttpRequest upload property and have no ReadableStream object used in the request.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.quarkus:quarkus-vertx-http"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.14.0.CR1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.14.2.Final"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.quarkus:quarkus-vertx-http"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.13.5.Final"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4147"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-06T22:25:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-06T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Quarkus CORS filter allows simple GET and POST requests with invalid Origin to proceed. Simple GET or POST requests made with XMLHttpRequest are the ones which have no event listeners registered on the object returned by the XMLHttpRequest upload property and have no ReadableStream object used in the request.",
"id": "GHSA-9895-g6x5-xwcp",
"modified": "2022-12-12T22:25:49Z",
"published": "2022-12-06T21:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4147"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2022-4147"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148867"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/quarkusio/quarkus"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://quarkus.io/blog/quarkus-2-14-2-final-released"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Quarkus CORS filter allows simple GET and POST requests with an invalid Origin to proceed"
}
GHSA-98X3-P3H4-W982
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:40 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:38Zulip Server 1.5.1 and below suffer from an error in the implementation of the invite_by_admins_only setting in the Zulip group chat application server that allowed an authenticated user to invite other users to join a Zulip organization even if the organization was configured to prevent this.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-0896"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-06-02T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Zulip Server 1.5.1 and below suffer from an error in the implementation of the invite_by_admins_only setting in the Zulip group chat application server that allowed an authenticated user to invite other users to join a Zulip organization even if the organization was configured to prevent this.",
"id": "GHSA-98x3-p3h4-w982",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:38:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:40:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-0896"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zulip/zulip/commit/1f48fa27672170bba3b9a97384905bb04c18761b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/224210"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/zulip-announce/sUYeJv-fFmg/2TU2TLmNAwAJ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21msg/zulip-announce/sUYeJv-fFmg/2TU2TLmNAwAJ"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-997C-FJ8J-RQ5H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-15 01:57 – Updated: 2021-05-12 17:42Docker 1.3.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code with root privileges via a crafted (1) image or (2) build in a Dockerfile in an LZMA (.xz) archive, related to the chroot for archive extraction.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/docker/docker"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.3.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-9357"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-12T17:42:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Docker 1.3.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code with root privileges via a crafted (1) image or (2) build in a Dockerfile in an LZMA (.xz) archive, related to the chroot for archive extraction.",
"id": "GHSA-997c-fj8j-rq5h",
"modified": "2021-05-12T17:42:53Z",
"published": "2022-02-15T01:57:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-9357"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/docker/docker/compare/aef842e7dfb534aba22c3c911de525ce9ac12b72...313a1b7620910e47d888f8b0a6a5eb06ad9c1ff2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#133-2014-12-11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/docker-user/nFAz-B-n4Bw/0wr3wvLsnUwJ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21msg/docker-user/nFAz-B-n4Bw/0wr3wvLsnUwJ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-9357"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/534215/100/0/threaded"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Arbitrary Code Execution"
}
GHSA-9983-VRX2-FG9C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-24 21:49 – Updated: 2026-03-27 22:10Background
NATS.io is a high performance open source pub-sub distributed communication technology, built for the cloud, on-premise, IoT, and edge computing.
The persistent storage feature, JetStream, has a management API which has many features, amongst which are backup and restore.
Problem Description
Users with JetStream admin API access to restore one stream could restore to other stream names, impacting data which should have been protected against them.
Affected Versions
Any version before v2.12.6 or v2.11.15
Workarounds
If developers have configured users to have limited JetStream restore permissions, temporarily remove those permissions.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.11.15"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.12.0-RC.1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.12.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/nats-io/nats-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33222"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-24T21:49:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-25T21:16:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Background\n\nNATS.io is a high performance open source pub-sub distributed communication technology, built for the cloud, on-premise, IoT, and edge computing.\n\nThe persistent storage feature, JetStream, has a management API which has many features, amongst which are backup and restore.\n\n### Problem Description\n\nUsers with JetStream admin API access to restore one stream could restore to other stream names, impacting data which should have been protected against them.\n\n### Affected Versions\n\nAny version before v2.12.6 or v2.11.15\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf developers have configured users to have limited JetStream restore permissions, temporarily remove those permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-9983-vrx2-fg9c",
"modified": "2026-03-27T22:10:15Z",
"published": "2026-03-24T21:49:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/security/advisories/GHSA-9983-vrx2-fg9c"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33222"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisories.nats.io/CVE/secnote-2026-12.txt"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "NATS JetStream has an authorization bypass through its Management API"
}
GHSA-99CW-MV92-985V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-20 18:31 – Updated: 2026-06-20 18:31Capgo before 12.128.2 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in webhook management endpoints that allows non-expiring API keys to bypass the require_apikey_expiration organization policy. The checkWebhookPermission function fails to call apikeyHasOrgRightWithPolicy, enabling attackers with legacy non-expiring keys to list, create, and delete webhooks despite explicit organizational policy requiring key expiration.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-56295"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-20T16:17:05Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Capgo before 12.128.2 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in webhook management endpoints that allows non-expiring API keys to bypass the require_apikey_expiration organization policy. The checkWebhookPermission function fails to call apikeyHasOrgRightWithPolicy, enabling attackers with legacy non-expiring keys to list, create, and delete webhooks despite explicit organizational policy requiring key expiration.",
"id": "GHSA-99cw-mv92-985v",
"modified": "2026-06-20T18:31:29Z",
"published": "2026-06-20T18:31:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Cap-go/capgo/security/advisories/GHSA-vwpp-cqv5-cmfm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56295"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/capgo-policy-enforcement-bypass-in-webhook-management-endpoints-via-non-expiring-api-keys"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-99H5-PJCV-GR6V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-09 15:40 – Updated: 2025-12-09 16:24Summary
A critical authentication bypass was identified in the API key creation and update endpoints. An attacker could create or modify API keys for arbitrary users by supplying a victim’s user ID in the request body. Due to a flaw in how the authenticated user was derived, the endpoints could treat attacker-controlled input as an authenticated user object under certain conditions.
Details
The vulnerability originated from fallback logic used when determining the current user. When no session was present, the handler incorrectly allowed request-body data to populate the user context used for authorization decisions. Because server-side validation only executed when authentication was required, privileged fields were not properly protected. As a result, the API accepted unauthenticated requests that targeted other users.
This same pattern affected both the API key creation and update routes.
Impact
Unauthenticated attackers could generate or modify API keys belonging to any user. This granted full authenticated access as the targeted user and, depending on the user’s privileges, could lead to account compromise, access to sensitive data, or broader application takeover.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "better-auth"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.3.26"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-61928"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-10-09T15:40:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-09T22:15:32Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### **Summary**\n\nA critical authentication bypass was identified in the API key creation and update endpoints. An attacker could create or modify API keys for arbitrary users by supplying a victim\u2019s user ID in the request body. Due to a flaw in how the authenticated user was derived, the endpoints could treat attacker-controlled input as an authenticated user object under certain conditions.\n\n### **Details**\n\nThe vulnerability originated from fallback logic used when determining the current user. When no session was present, the handler incorrectly allowed request-body data to populate the user context used for authorization decisions. Because server-side validation only executed when authentication was required, privileged fields were not properly protected. As a result, the API accepted unauthenticated requests that targeted other users.\n\nThis same pattern affected both the API key creation and update routes.\n\n### **Impact**\n\nUnauthenticated attackers could generate or modify API keys belonging to any user. This granted full authenticated access as the targeted user and, depending on the user\u2019s privileges, could lead to account compromise, access to sensitive data, or broader application takeover.",
"id": "GHSA-99h5-pjcv-gr6v",
"modified": "2025-12-09T16:24:49Z",
"published": "2025-10-09T15:40:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-99h5-pjcv-gr6v"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61928"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/commit/556085067609c508f8c546ceef9003ee8c607d39"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Better Auth: Unauthenticated API key creation through api-key plugin"
}
GHSA-9C9Q-CMCW-FX7G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-18 12:30 – Updated: 2023-05-18 12:30Sensitive information disclosure and manipulation due to improper authorization. The following products are affected: Acronis Agent (Linux, macOS, Windows) before build 28610, Acronis Cyber Protect 15 (Linux, macOS, Windows) before build 30984.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-45450"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-18T10:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Sensitive information disclosure and manipulation due to improper authorization. The following products are affected: Acronis Agent (Linux, macOS, Windows) before build 28610, Acronis Cyber Protect 15 (Linux, macOS, Windows) before build 30984.",
"id": "GHSA-9c9q-cmcw-fx7g",
"modified": "2023-05-18T12:30:14Z",
"published": "2023-05-18T12:30:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-45450"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security-advisory.acronis.com/advisories/SEC-2410"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- 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
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
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
- 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
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.