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.
2307 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-C6G7-C2CG-GRHJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:44 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:44A vulnerability was found in Moodle affecting 3.7 to 3.7.1, 3.6 to 3.6.5, 3.5 to 3.5.7 and earlier unsupported versions, where users with the capability to create courses were assigned as a teacher in those courses, regardless of whether they had the capability to be automatically assigned that role.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-14828"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-19T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in Moodle affecting 3.7 to 3.7.1, 3.6 to 3.6.5, 3.5 to 3.5.7 and earlier unsupported versions, where users with the capability to create courses were assigned as a teacher in those courses, regardless of whether they had the capability to be automatically assigned that role.",
"id": "GHSA-c6g7-c2cg-grhj",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:44:54Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:44:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-14828"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=391031"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-C6MQ-JMQR-FJ42
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-06 09:30 – Updated: 2025-11-06 09:30The Better Find and Replace – AI-Powered Suggestions plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized API usage due to a missing capability check on the rtafar_ajax() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.7.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access, to trigger OpenAI API key usage resulting in quota consumption potentially incurring cost.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12360"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-06T08:15:38Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Better Find and Replace \u2013 AI-Powered Suggestions plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized API usage due to a missing capability check on the rtafar_ajax() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.7.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access, to trigger OpenAI API key usage resulting in quota consumption potentially incurring cost.",
"id": "GHSA-c6mq-jmqr-fj42",
"modified": "2025-11-06T09:30:27Z",
"published": "2025-11-06T09:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12360"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/real-time-auto-find-and-replace/trunk/core/actions/RTAFAR_CustomAjax.php#L31"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3389979/real-time-auto-find-and-replace/trunk/core/actions/RTAFAR_CustomAjax.php?contextall=1\u0026old=3343531\u0026old_path=%2Freal-time-auto-find-and-replace%2Ftrunk%2Fcore%2Factions%2FRTAFAR_CustomAjax.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/757e41dd-d72f-4e87-a087-c5c38bd727e5?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-C6Q5-V72X-3CQQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-01 03:30 – Updated: 2026-06-01 03:30A vulnerability was determined in AstrBotDevs AstrBot 4.23.6. Affected by this issue is the function _normalize_rw_path of the file astrbot/core/tools/computer_tools/fs.py. This manipulation causes incorrect authorization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-10211"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-01T02:16:17Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was determined in AstrBotDevs AstrBot 4.23.6. Affected by this issue is the function _normalize_rw_path of the file astrbot/core/tools/computer_tools/fs.py. This manipulation causes incorrect authorization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-c6q5-v72x-3cqq",
"modified": "2026-06-01T03:30:26Z",
"published": "2026-06-01T03:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-10211"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/YLChen-007/b5e4671ff68e4f9001d977180ef4f081"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-10211"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/821921"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/367490"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/367490/cti"
}
],
"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:P/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-C6W6-57JJ-62VH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 00:04 – Updated: 2026-07-14 00:04Summary
Kimai 2.56.0 contains an authenticated authorization bypass in the timesheet restart and duplicate workflows. After a user loses access to a project, the user can still derive a new timesheet from one of their historical entries and create a new record under that now-unauthorized project and activity combination.
This is a permission revocation bypass with persistent write impact. The issue affects both restart and duplicate, which trust ownership of an old timesheet more than the user's current access to the underlying project, activity, and customer.
Details
The issue affects the following operations:
PATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/restartPATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/duplicate
The root cause is that authorization gives too much weight to the fact that the original timesheet belongs to the current user. In src/Voter/TimesheetVoter.php, the *_own_timesheet branch is evaluated before team-based access checks.
The restart/duplicate capability check also verifies only object visibility, not whether the current user still has team-based access to the referenced objects.
In src/API/TimesheetController.php, the restart flow copies the historical project and activity into a new candidate timesheet.
The duplicate flow similarly clones the historical record and saves it.
In src/Timesheet/TimesheetService.php, creation of a new running entry still relies on isGranted('start', $timesheet).
For historical entries that belong to the current user, this logic can still succeed through the *_own_timesheet branch even after project access has been revoked. As a result, normal creation pages correctly stop offering the revoked project, but restart and duplicate can still create new records under it.
The same weakness also affects the Web duplicate flow because the UI path ultimately calls the same save logic in src/Controller/TimesheetAbstractController.php:
A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.
Impact
This vulnerability allows a user to keep writing new time entries into a project after project access has been revoked. That undermines administrative access-control changes and can pollute project time tracking, budget calculations, statistics, reports, and invoicing workflows.
Because both restart and duplicate can reuse historical project/activity bindings, old timesheet records effectively become reusable capability tokens that survive later access-control changes. This is not a UI artifact or a caching problem: new database rows are persisted after revocation.
Solution
The metoid TimesheetVoter::canStart() now checks team access for project and activity. This verification is used for new timesheets and also for the duplication and restart workflows.
See https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-c6w6-57jj-62vh for more information.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.57.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "kimai/kimai"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.58.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-52822"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-14T00:04:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nKimai 2.56.0 contains an authenticated authorization bypass in the timesheet `restart` and `duplicate` workflows. After a user loses access to a project, the user can still derive a new timesheet from one of their historical entries and create a new record under that now-unauthorized project and activity combination.\n\nThis is a permission revocation bypass with persistent write impact. The issue affects both `restart` and `duplicate`, which trust ownership of an old timesheet more than the user\u0027s current access to the underlying project, activity, and customer.\n\n### Details\n\nThe issue affects the following operations:\n\n- `PATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/restart`\n- `PATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/duplicate`\n\nThe root cause is that authorization gives too much weight to the fact that the original timesheet belongs to the current user. In `src/Voter/TimesheetVoter.php`, the `*_own_timesheet` branch is evaluated before team-based access checks.\n\nThe restart/duplicate capability check also verifies only object visibility, not whether the current user still has team-based access to the referenced objects. \n\nIn `src/API/TimesheetController.php`, the restart flow copies the historical `project` and `activity` into a new candidate timesheet.\n\nThe duplicate flow similarly clones the historical record and saves it.\n\nIn `src/Timesheet/TimesheetService.php`, creation of a new running entry still relies on `isGranted(\u0027start\u0027, $timesheet)`.\n\nFor historical entries that belong to the current user, this logic can still succeed through the `*_own_timesheet` branch even after project access has been revoked. As a result, normal creation pages correctly stop offering the revoked project, but `restart` and `duplicate` can still create new records under it.\n\nThe same weakness also affects the Web duplicate flow because the UI path ultimately calls the same save logic in `src/Controller/TimesheetAbstractController.php`:\n\n*A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.*\n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability allows a user to keep writing new time entries into a project after project access has been revoked. That undermines administrative access-control changes and can pollute project time tracking, budget calculations, statistics, reports, and invoicing workflows.\n\nBecause both `restart` and `duplicate` can reuse historical project/activity bindings, old timesheet records effectively become reusable capability tokens that survive later access-control changes. This is not a UI artifact or a caching problem: new database rows are persisted after revocation.\n\n# Solution\n\nThe metoid `TimesheetVoter::canStart()` now checks team access for project and activity. This verification is used for new timesheets and also for the `duplication` and `restart` workflows.\n\nSee [https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-c6w6-57jj-62vh](https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-c6w6-57jj-62vh) for more information.",
"id": "GHSA-c6w6-57jj-62vh",
"modified": "2026-07-14T00:04:26Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T00:04:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai/security/advisories/GHSA-c6w6-57jj-62vh"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"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": "Improper Authorization in Kimai Timesheet Restart and Duplicate Allows New Timesheets After Project Access Revocation"
}
GHSA-C72G-53HW-82Q7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-23 18:41 – Updated: 2026-03-30 13:56Overview
OpenFGA v1.8.0 to v1.8.12 ( openfga-0.2.16 <= Helm chart <= openfga-0.2.31, v1.8.0 <= docker <= v.1.8.12) are vulnerable to authorization bypass when certain Check and ListObject calls are executed.
Am I Affected?
If you are using OpenFGA v1.8.0 to v1.8.12, specifically under the following conditions, you are affected by this authorization bypass vulnerability: - Calling Check API or ListObjects with an authorization model that has a relationship directly assignable by both type bound public access and userset, and - There are check or list object queries with contextual tuples for the relationship that can be directly assignable by both type bound public access and userset, and - Those contextual tuples’s user field is an userset, and - Type bound public access tuples are not assigned to the relationship
Fix
Upgrade to v1.8.13. This upgrade is backwards compatible.
Acknowledgments
OpenFGA would like to thank @udyvish for discovering this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.8.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-48371"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-05-23T18:41:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-22T23:15:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Overview\nOpenFGA v1.8.0 to v1.8.12 ( openfga-0.2.16 \u003c= Helm chart \u003c= openfga-0.2.31, v1.8.0 \u003c= docker \u003c= v.1.8.12) are vulnerable to authorization bypass when certain Check and ListObject calls are executed.\n\n\n### Am I Affected?\nIf you are using OpenFGA v1.8.0 to v1.8.12, specifically under the following conditions, you are affected by this authorization bypass vulnerability:\n- Calling Check API or ListObjects with an [authorization model](https://openfga.dev/docs/concepts#what-is-an-authorization-model) that has a relationship directly assignable by both [type bound public access](https://openfga.dev/docs/concepts#what-is-type-bound-public-access) and [userset](https://openfga.dev/docs/modeling/building-blocks/usersets), and\n- There are check or list object queries with [contextual tuples](https://openfga.dev/docs/interacting/contextual-tuples) for the relationship that can be directly assignable by both [type bound public access](https://openfga.dev/docs/concepts#what-is-type-bound-public-access) and [userset](https://openfga.dev/docs/modeling/building-blocks/usersets), and\n- Those contextual tuples\u2019s user field is an userset, and\n- Type bound public access tuples are not assigned to the relationship\n\n### Fix\nUpgrade to v1.8.13. This upgrade is backwards compatible.\n\n### Acknowledgments\nOpenFGA would like to thank @udyvish for discovering this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-c72g-53hw-82q7",
"modified": "2026-03-30T13:56:21Z",
"published": "2025-05-23T18:41:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/security/advisories/GHSA-c72g-53hw-82q7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/commit/e5960d4eba92b723de8ff3a5346a07f50c1379ca"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3707"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenFGA Authorization Bypass"
}
GHSA-C7XH-GJV4-4JGV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-11 18:42 – Updated: 2024-12-12 19:33Impact
Impersonation is a feature of the Kubernetes API, allowing to override user information. As downstream project, kcp inherits this feature. As per the linked documentation a specific level of privilege (usually assigned to cluster admins) is required for impersonation.
The vulnerability in kcp affects kcp installations in which users are granted the cluster-admin ClusterRole (or comparably high permission levels that grant impersonation access; the verb in question is impersonate) within their respective workspaces. As kcp builds around self-service confined within workspaces, most installations would likely grant such workspace access to their users. Such users can impersonate special global administrative groups, which circumvent parts of the authorizer chains, e.g. maximal permission policies.
Patches
The problem has been patched in #3206 and is available in kcp 0.26.1 and higher.
Workarounds
- Not assigning the
cluster-adminrole (or any other role granting blanket impersonation permissions) to users. - A reverse proxy between users and kcp to check for the
Impersonate-Groupheader and reject requests that impersonate global administrative groups.
References
See the pull request (#3206).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.26.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kcp-dev/kcp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.26.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-12-11T18:42:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\n[Impersonation](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/authentication/#user-impersonation) is a feature of the Kubernetes API, allowing to override user information. As downstream project, kcp inherits this feature. As per the linked documentation a specific level of privilege (usually assigned to cluster admins) is required for impersonation.\n\nThe vulnerability in kcp affects kcp installations in which users are granted the `cluster-admin` ClusterRole (or comparably high permission levels that grant impersonation access; the verb in question is `impersonate`) within their respective workspaces. As kcp builds around self-service confined within workspaces, most installations would likely grant such workspace access to their users. Such users can impersonate special global administrative groups, which circumvent parts of the authorizer chains, e.g. [maximal permission policies](https://docs.kcp.io/kcp/v0.26/concepts/apis/exporting-apis/#maximal-permission-policy).\n\n### Patches\n\nThe problem has been patched in #3206 and is available in kcp 0.26.1 and higher.\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- Not assigning the `cluster-admin` role (or any other role granting blanket impersonation permissions) to users.\n- A reverse proxy between users and kcp to check for the `Impersonate-Group` header and reject requests that impersonate global administrative groups.\n\n### References\n\nSee the pull request (#3206).\n",
"id": "GHSA-c7xh-gjv4-4jgv",
"modified": "2024-12-12T19:33:14Z",
"published": "2024-12-11T18:42:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/security/advisories/GHSA-c7xh-gjv4-4jgv"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/pull/3206"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/commit/24ab5d4dc35ddff98a2e5fdc236e1681f03283ec"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-3325"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "kcp\u0027s impersonation allows access to global administrative groups"
}
GHSA-C949-3PPW-H395
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-17 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-17 00:30Vulnerability in the Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: LOV). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.3-12.2.13. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.1 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-21031"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-16T22:15:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: LOV). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.3-12.2.13. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Complex Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.1 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).",
"id": "GHSA-c949-3ppw-h395",
"modified": "2024-04-17T00:30:55Z",
"published": "2024-04-17T00:30:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21031"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2024.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-C9XJ-QGPM-MJ78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-15 03:30 – Updated: 2024-08-15 03:30The Zephyr Project Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to limited privilege escalation in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.101. This is due to the plugin not properly checking a users capabilities before allowing them to enable access to the plugin's settings through the update_user_access() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to grant themselves full access to the plugin's settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-7624"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-15T03:15:05Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Zephyr Project Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to limited privilege escalation in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.101. This is due to the plugin not properly checking a users capabilities before allowing them to enable access to the plugin\u0027s settings through the update_user_access() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to grant themselves full access to the plugin\u0027s settings.",
"id": "GHSA-c9xj-qgpm-mj78",
"modified": "2024-08-15T03:30:28Z",
"published": "2024-08-15T03:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7624"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/zephyr-project-manager/trunk/includes/Base/AjaxHandler.php?rev=3111536#L2464"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3134404"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/b9ef344d-cd56-43f9-b185-de83a92800de?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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CC3W-R3W8-HFH7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:13 – Updated: 2025-02-10 21:02Magento versions 2.4.2 (and earlier), 2.4.1-p1 (and earlier) and 2.3.6-p1 (and earlier) are vulnerable to an Improper Authorization vulnerability in the customers module. Successful exploitation could allow a low-privileged user to modify customer data. Access to the admin console is required for successful exploitation.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.2-p1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/project-community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28567"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-11T19:50:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-08T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Magento versions 2.4.2 (and earlier), 2.4.1-p1 (and earlier) and 2.3.6-p1 (and earlier) are vulnerable to an Improper Authorization vulnerability in the customers module. Successful exploitation could allow a low-privileged user to modify customer data. Access to the admin console is required for successful exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-cc3w-r3w8-hfh7",
"modified": "2025-02-10T21:02:33Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:13:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28567"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2/commit/1bd5cb8c065e44779526c0b044ce19b884707695"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb21-30.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Magento Improper Authorization vulnerability in the customers module"
}
GHSA-CCR7-C63M-8VGM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 00:31 – Updated: 2026-04-03 00:31Improper authorization in Azure AI Foundry allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32213"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-03T00:16:04Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper authorization in Azure AI Foundry allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-ccr7-c63m-8vgm",
"modified": "2026-04-03T00:31:09Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T00:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32213"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32213"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"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.