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-F24M-JWF4-XPXC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-12 00:31 – Updated: 2026-05-27 00:31An authorization issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.4, macOS Sonoma 14.8.4. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-43403"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-11T23:16:01Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An authorization issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.4, macOS Sonoma 14.8.4. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.",
"id": "GHSA-f24m-jwf4-xpxc",
"modified": "2026-05-27T00:31:26Z",
"published": "2026-02-12T00:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43403"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/125110"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126349"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126350"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-F2HF-PFRJ-VRM7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-06 17:58 – Updated: 2025-10-23 17:43Impact
Anyone with VIEW access to a user profile can create a token for that user. If that XWiki instance is configured to allow token authentication, it allows authentication with any user (since users are very commonly viewable, at least to other registered users).
Patches
Version 2.18.2.
Workarounds
The only workaround is to disable token access.
References
- https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/OIDC-240
- https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/oidc/commit/d90d717172283aaa96bb5bb44e357f910ae64adb
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in Jira XWiki.org * Email us at Security Mailing List
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.xwiki.contrib.oidc:oidc-authenticator"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.17.1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.18.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49594"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-10-06T17:58:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-06T15:16:04Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nAnyone with VIEW access to a user profile can create a token for that user. If that XWiki instance is configured to allow token authentication, it allows authentication with any user (since users are very commonly viewable, at least to other registered users).\n\n### Patches\n\nVersion 2.18.2.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThe only workaround is to disable token access.\n\n### References\n\n* https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/OIDC-240\n* https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/oidc/commit/d90d717172283aaa96bb5bb44e357f910ae64adb\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [Jira XWiki.org](https://jira.xwiki.org/)\n* Email us at [Security Mailing List](mailto:security@xwiki.org)",
"id": "GHSA-f2hf-pfrj-vrm7",
"modified": "2025-10-23T17:43:47Z",
"published": "2025-10-06T17:58:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/oidc/security/advisories/GHSA-f2hf-pfrj-vrm7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49594"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/oidc/commit/d90d717172283aaa96bb5bb44e357f910ae64adb"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/oidc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/OIDC-240"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vicarius.io/vsociety/posts/cve-2025-49594-detect-xwiki-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vicarius.io/vsociety/posts/cve-2025-49594-mitigate-xwiki-vulnerability"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "XWiki OIDC Authenticator: Users with \"view\" access can create tokens for any users they can view"
}
GHSA-F3V6-QMVG-FHWG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-12 18:30 – Updated: 2024-11-12 18:30Azure CycleCloud Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43602"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-12T18:15:28Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Azure CycleCloud Remote Code Execution Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-f3v6-qmvg-fhwg",
"modified": "2024-11-12T18:30:58Z",
"published": "2024-11-12T18:30:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-43602"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-F44G-3VJ9-VWV9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 19:24 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:32In Splunk Enterprise versions below 8.1.13, 8.2.10, and 9.0.4, the ‘sendemail’ REST API endpoint lets any authenticated user send an email as the Splunk instance. The endpoint is now restricted to the ‘splunk-system-user’ account on the local instance.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22938"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-14T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Splunk Enterprise versions below 8.1.13, 8.2.10, and 9.0.4, the \u2018sendemail\u2019 REST API endpoint lets any authenticated user send an email as the Splunk instance. The endpoint is now restricted to the \u2018splunk-system-user\u2019 account on the local instance.",
"id": "GHSA-f44g-3vj9-vwv9",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:32:58Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T19:24:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22938"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisory.splunk.com/advisories/SVD-2023-0208"
}
],
"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-F47H-HR72-5959
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-04 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-10 00:01Improper Authorization in GitHub repository janeczku/calibre-web prior to 0.6.16.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-0406"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-03T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization in GitHub repository janeczku/calibre-web prior to 0.6.16.",
"id": "GHSA-f47h-hr72-5959",
"modified": "2022-04-10T00:01:04Z",
"published": "2022-04-04T00:00:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0406"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/janeczku/calibre-web/commit/e0e04220109920575179a8f924543449c6de0706"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/d7498799-4797-4751-b5e2-b669e729d5db"
}
],
"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-F4MM-2R69-MG5F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-25 20:21 – Updated: 2023-06-27 21:55Overview
During our internal security assessment, it was discovered that OpenFGA versions v0.2.3 and prior are vulnerable to authorization bypass under certain conditions.
Am I Affected?
You are affected by this vulnerability if you are using openfga/openfga version v0.2.3 or prior, and your model has a relation defined as a tupleset (the right hand side of a ‘from’ statement) that involves anything other than a direct relationship (e.g. ‘as self’)
How to fix that?
Upgrade to version v0.2.4.
Backward Compatibility
This update is not backward compatible. Any model involving rewritten tupleset relations will no longer be acceptable and has to be modified.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.2.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.2.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-39342"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-25T20:21:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Overview\nDuring our internal security assessment, it was discovered that OpenFGA versions `v0.2.3` and prior are vulnerable to authorization bypass under certain conditions.\n\n### Am I Affected?\nYou are affected by this vulnerability if you are using `openfga/openfga` version `v0.2.3` or prior, and your model has a relation defined as a tupleset (the right hand side of a \u2018from\u2019 statement) that involves anything other than a direct relationship (e.g. \u2018as self\u2019)\n\n### How to fix that?\nUpgrade to version `v0.2.4`.\n\n### Backward Compatibility\nThis update is not backward compatible.\nAny model involving rewritten tupleset relations will no longer be acceptable and has to be modified.\n ",
"id": "GHSA-f4mm-2r69-mg5f",
"modified": "2023-06-27T21:55:58Z",
"published": "2022-10-25T20:21:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/security/advisories/GHSA-f4mm-2r69-mg5f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-39342"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/commit/c8db1ee3d2a366f18e585dd33236340e76e784c4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/releases/tag/v0.2.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenFGA Authorization Bypass"
}
GHSA-F4X7-6GHC-CHGP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:53 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:40Incorrect configuration in deb package in ClickHouse before 1.1.54131 could lead to unauthorized use of the database.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-14670"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-15T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Incorrect configuration in deb package in ClickHouse before 1.1.54131 could lead to unauthorized use of the database.",
"id": "GHSA-f4x7-6ghc-chgp",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:40:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:53:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-14670"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://clickhouse.yandex/docs/en/security_changelog"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-F4XV-85HG-MW5R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-16 03:32 – Updated: 2026-07-16 03:32A vulnerability has been found in RafyMrX TOKO-ONLINE-ROTI up to ddfe1cd587be0a0b5135d8b6e85cce2ec3aece99. Affected is an unknown function of the file proses/add.php. The manipulation of the argument kd_cs leads to authorization bypass. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-15909"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-16T01:16:29Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in RafyMrX TOKO-ONLINE-ROTI up to ddfe1cd587be0a0b5135d8b6e85cce2ec3aece99. Affected is an unknown function of the file proses/add.php. The manipulation of the argument kd_cs leads to authorization bypass. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-f4xv-85hg-mw5r",
"modified": "2026-07-16T03:32:43Z",
"published": "2026-07-16T03:32:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-15909"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-15909"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/844299"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/379368"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/379368/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: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-F577-QRJJ-4474
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-04 17:52 – Updated: 2026-06-04 17:52Summary
The jwt and jwk middlewares do not verify that the Authorization header value uses theBearer scheme. Any two-part header value — regardless of the scheme name in the first position — proceeds to JWT verification. A request presenting a valid JWT under a non-Bearer scheme identifier (such as Basic or Token) is authenticated identically to a correctly formed Bearer request.
Details
When processing an Authorization (or custom) header, the middleware splits the value on whitespace and uses the second token as the JWT to verify. It does not check that the first token is bearer (case-insensitively). RFC 6750 specifies that JWT bearer tokens must be presented using the Bearer scheme; other scheme identifiers carry distinct semantics and may be subject to different policies in network-layer security controls.
This discrepancy means that scheme-aware external controls — such as WAF rules, API gateways, or reverse proxies that apply policies specific to the Bearer scheme identifier — can be bypassed by presenting a valid JWT under a different scheme name.
This issue affects hono/jwt and hono/jwk middleware.
Impact
An attacker who possesses a valid JWT may present it under a non-Bearer scheme identifier and still pass middleware authentication.
This may lead to:
- Bypass of network-layer security controls that inspect or filter requests based on the authorization scheme identifier
- Token reuse across authentication schemes in applications that use multiple authorization mechanisms
This issue affects applications where hono/jwt or hono/jwk authentication is combined with external controls that enforce scheme-based access policies.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "hono"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.12.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-47673"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-04T17:52:04Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-28T17:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe `jwt` and `jwk` middlewares do not verify that the `Authorization` header value uses the`Bearer` scheme. Any two-part header value \u2014 regardless of the scheme name in the first position \u2014 proceeds to JWT verification. A request presenting a valid JWT under a non-`Bearer` scheme identifier (such as `Basic` or `Token`) is authenticated identically to a correctly formed `Bearer` request.\n\n### Details\n\nWhen processing an `Authorization` (or custom) header, the middleware splits the value on whitespace and uses the second token as the JWT to verify. It does not check that the first token is `bearer` (case-insensitively). RFC 6750 specifies that JWT bearer tokens must be presented using the `Bearer` scheme; other scheme identifiers carry distinct semantics and may be subject to different policies in network-layer security controls.\n\nThis discrepancy means that scheme-aware external controls \u2014 such as WAF rules, API gateways, or reverse proxies that apply policies specific to the `Bearer` scheme identifier \u2014 can be bypassed by presenting a valid JWT under a different scheme name.\n\nThis issue affects `hono/jwt` and `hono/jwk` middleware.\n\n### Impact\n\nAn attacker who possesses a valid JWT may present it under a non-`Bearer` scheme identifier and still pass middleware authentication.\n\nThis may lead to:\n\n- Bypass of network-layer security controls that inspect or filter requests based on the authorization scheme identifier\n- Token reuse across authentication schemes in applications that use multiple authorization mechanisms\n\nThis issue affects applications where `hono/jwt` or `hono/jwk` authentication is combined with external controls that enforce scheme-based access policies.",
"id": "GHSA-f577-qrjj-4474",
"modified": "2026-06-04T17:52:04Z",
"published": "2026-06-04T17:52:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/security/advisories/GHSA-f577-qrjj-4474"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-47673"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/commit/5463db2735476959b8af67756f4e513f4fe19115"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/releases/tag/v4.12.21"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Hono: JWT middleware accepts any Authorization scheme, not only Bearer"
}
GHSA-F582-6GF6-GX4G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-24 17:28 – Updated: 2026-03-25 21:00Summary
An authenticated control panel user with only accessCp can move entries across sections via POST /actions/entries/move-to-section, even when they do not have saveEntries:{sectionUid} permission for either source or destination section.
Details
Root-cause analysis
- actionMoveToSection accepts sectionId and entryIds, loads entries, and iterates:
Craft::$app->getEntries()->moveEntryToSection($entry, $section). - The endpoint does not enforce per-entry or per-section authorization checks.
moveEntryToSection()also does not enforce current-user authorization.- There is a permission check in
actionMoveToSectionModalDatafor building UI options, but that check is not enforced in the actual endpoint. - Therefore, a direct POST request can bypass UI filtering and perform unauthorized entry moves.
### Impact
- This is an authorization bypass permitting unauthorized content changes.
- Authenticated low-privileged control panel users can move entries they should not be able to manage, violating integrity and potentially disrupting routing/editorial controls.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.9.13"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "craftcms/cms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.9.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33162"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-24T17:28:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-24T18:16:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nAn authenticated control panel user with only accessCp can move entries across sections via POST `/actions/entries/move-to-section`, even when they do not have `saveEntries:{sectionUid}` permission for either source or destination section.\n\n### Details\n\n#### Root-cause analysis\n\n 1. actionMoveToSection accepts sectionId and entryIds, loads entries, and iterates:\n`Craft::$app-\u003egetEntries()-\u003emoveEntryToSection($entry, $section)`.\n 2. The endpoint does not enforce per-entry or per-section authorization checks.\n 3. `moveEntryToSection()` also does not enforce current-user authorization.\n 4. There is a permission check in `actionMoveToSectionModalData` for building UI options, but that check is not enforced in the actual endpoint.\n 5. Therefore, a direct POST request can bypass UI filtering and perform unauthorized entry moves.\n\n ### Impact\n\n* This is an authorization bypass permitting unauthorized content changes.\n* Authenticated low-privileged control panel users can move entries they should not be able to manage, violating integrity and potentially disrupting routing/editorial controls.",
"id": "GHSA-f582-6gf6-gx4g",
"modified": "2026-03-25T21:00:30Z",
"published": "2026-03-24T17:28:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/security/advisories/GHSA-f582-6gf6-gx4g"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33162"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/commit/3c1ab1c4445dd9237855a66e6a06ecf3591a718e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/releases/tag/5.9.14"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Craft CMS has an authorization bypass which allows any control panel user to move entries without permissions"
}
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.