Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-285

Discouraged

Improper Authorization

Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft

API response cwe.mitre.org

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

2305 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-H2V7-XC88-XX8C

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 18:10 – Updated: 2026-04-28 18:14
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaw: `/phone arm`/`/phone disarm` Bypasses `operator.admin` Scope Check for External Channels
Details

Summary

/phone arm//phone disarm Bypasses operator.admin Scope Check for External Channels

Current Maintainer Triage

  • Status: open
  • Normalized severity: medium
  • Assessment: Maintainers accepted this issue, fixed it in aa66ae1fc797d3298cc409ed2c5da69a89950a45 on 2026-03-27, and that fix shipped in v2026.3.28, so normalize it as a fixed released draft rather than a close-by-trust-model call.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Latest published npm version: 2026.3.31
  • Vulnerable version range: <=2026.3.24
  • Patched versions: >= 2026.3.28
  • First stable tag containing the fix: v2026.3.28

Fix Commit(s)

  • aa66ae1fc797d3298cc409ed2c5da69a89950a45 — 2026-03-27T20:35:42Z

Release Process Note

  • The fix is already present in released version 2026.3.28.
  • This draft looks ready for final maintainer disposition or publication, not additional code-fix work.

Thanks @AntAISecurityLab for reporting.

Severity
6.9 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2026.3.24"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.3.28"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-41375"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-07T18:10:04Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n`/phone arm`/`/phone disarm` Bypasses `operator.admin` Scope Check for External Channels\n\n## Current Maintainer Triage\n- Status: open\n- Normalized severity: medium\n- Assessment: Maintainers accepted this issue, fixed it in aa66ae1fc797d3298cc409ed2c5da69a89950a45 on 2026-03-27, and that fix shipped in v2026.3.28, so normalize it as a fixed released draft rather than a close-by-trust-model call.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Latest published npm version: `2026.3.31`\n- Vulnerable version range: `\u003c=2026.3.24`\n- Patched versions: `\u003e= 2026.3.28`\n- First stable tag containing the fix: `v2026.3.28`\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n- `aa66ae1fc797d3298cc409ed2c5da69a89950a45` \u2014 2026-03-27T20:35:42Z\n\n## Release Process Note\n- The fix is already present in released version `2026.3.28`.\n- This draft looks ready for final maintainer disposition or publication, not additional code-fix work.\n\nThanks @AntAISecurityLab for reporting.",
  "id": "GHSA-h2v7-xc88-xx8c",
  "modified": "2026-04-28T18:14:25Z",
  "published": "2026-04-07T18:10:04Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-h2v7-xc88-xx8c"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaw: `/phone arm`/`/phone disarm` Bypasses `operator.admin` Scope Check for External Channels "
}

GHSA-H37Q-X6PV-4P48

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-06 15:30 – Updated: 2024-08-14 21:33
VLAI
Details

DedeCMS V5.7.114 is vulnerable to deletion of any file via mail_file_manage.php.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-33749"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-05-06T13:15:49Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "DedeCMS V5.7.114 is vulnerable to deletion of any file via mail_file_manage.php.",
  "id": "GHSA-h37q-x6pv-4p48",
  "modified": "2024-08-14T21:33:11Z",
  "published": "2024-05-06T15:30:35Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-33749"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/QianGeG/CVE/issues/13"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H3C8-RQV3-223W

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-17 00:30 – Updated: 2026-01-17 00:30
VLAI
Details

Improper authorization in Microsoft Power Apps allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-20960"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-16T22:16:25Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Improper authorization in Microsoft Power Apps allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network.",
  "id": "GHSA-h3c8-rqv3-223w",
  "modified": "2026-01-17T00:30:24Z",
  "published": "2026-01-17T00:30:24Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-20960"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20960"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H3PV-7X2G-G6VP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-18 09:30 – Updated: 2025-10-18 09:30
VLAI
Details

The FileBird – WordPress Media Library Folders & File Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the /filebird/v1/fb-wipe-clear-all-data function in all versions up to, and including, 6.4.9. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with author-level access and above, to reset all of the plugin's configuration data.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-11510"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-10-18T07:15:35Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The FileBird \u2013 WordPress Media Library Folders \u0026 File Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the /filebird/v1/fb-wipe-clear-all-data function in all versions up to, and including, 6.4.9. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with author-level access and above, to reset all of the plugin\u0027s configuration data.",
  "id": "GHSA-h3pv-7x2g-g6vp",
  "modified": "2025-10-18T09:30:50Z",
  "published": "2025-10-18T09:30:50Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11510"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3379856/filebird/trunk/includes/Classes/Convert.php"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/60ed7738-5cba-4fc0-9178-265773555369?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-H3RM-XCQX-MV7Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-30 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-30 15:30
VLAI
Details

The Otter Blocks plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Purchase Verification Bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.4. This is due to the 'get_customer_data' method relying on an unsigned 'o_stripe_data' cookie to determine Stripe product ownership for unauthenticated users. The 'check_purchase' method trusts this cookie data without performing server-side verification against the Stripe API for one-time 'payment' mode purchases. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bypass Stripe purchase-gated content visibility conditions by forging the 'o_stripe_data' cookie with a target product ID, which is publicly exposed in the checkout block's HTML source.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-2892"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-04-30T14:16:29Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "The Otter Blocks plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Purchase Verification Bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.4. This is due to the \u0027get_customer_data\u0027 method relying on an unsigned \u0027o_stripe_data\u0027 cookie to determine Stripe product ownership for unauthenticated users. The \u0027check_purchase\u0027 method trusts this cookie data without performing server-side verification against the Stripe API for one-time \u0027payment\u0027 mode purchases. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bypass Stripe purchase-gated content visibility conditions by forging the \u0027o_stripe_data\u0027 cookie with a target product ID, which is publicly exposed in the checkout block\u0027s HTML source.",
  "id": "GHSA-h3rm-xcqx-mv7q",
  "modified": "2026-04-30T15:30:39Z",
  "published": "2026-04-30T15:30:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-2892"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/otter-blocks/trunk/inc/plugins/class-block-conditions.php#L274"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/otter-blocks/trunk/inc/plugins/class-stripe-api.php#L260"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/otter-blocks/trunk/inc/plugins/class-stripe-api.php#L284"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3471326"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/3443950f-1f94-4e0b-8906-1a9b9602a746?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H458-4C82-J96Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-08 09:31 – Updated: 2024-08-15 18:31
VLAI
Details

Permission verification vulnerability in the Settings module. Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-52539"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-04-08T09:15:08Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Permission verification vulnerability in the Settings module.\nImpact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality.",
  "id": "GHSA-h458-4c82-j96q",
  "modified": "2024-08-15T18:31:43Z",
  "published": "2024-04-08T09:31:13Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52539"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2024/3"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/en/docs/security/update/security-bulletins-202403-0000001667644725"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H45F-RJVW-2RV2

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-01 12:32 – Updated: 2023-02-08 20:54
VLAI
Summary
Withdrawn: wallabag subject to Improper Authorization
Details

Duplicate advisory

This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-qwx8-mxxx-mg96. This link is maintained to preserve external references.

Original Description

Improper Authorization in GitHub repository wallabag/wallabag prior to 2.5.3.

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

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Packagist",
        "name": "wallabag/wallabag"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.0.0-alpha.1"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.5.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2023-02-02T19:26:25Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-02-01T12:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Duplicate advisory\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of [GHSA-qwx8-mxxx-mg96](https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-qwx8-mxxx-mg96). This link is maintained to preserve external references.\n\n## Original Description\n\nImproper Authorization in GitHub repository wallabag/wallabag prior to 2.5.3.",
  "id": "GHSA-h45f-rjvw-2rv2",
  "modified": "2023-02-08T20:54:38Z",
  "published": "2023-02-01T12:32:41Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0609"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/wallabag/wallabag/commit/0f7460dbab9e29f4f7d2944aca20210f828b6abb"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/3adef66f-fc86-4e6d-a540-2ffa59342ff0"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Withdrawn: wallabag subject to Improper Authorization",
  "withdrawn": "2023-02-02T19:26:25Z"
}

GHSA-H4HQ-RGVH-WH27

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-04 20:13 – Updated: 2026-03-04 20:13
VLAI
Summary
Vaultwarden's Collection Management Operations Allowed Without `manage` Verification for Manager Role
Details

Summary

Testing confirmed that even when a Manager has manage=false for a given collection, they can still perform the following management operations as long as they have access to the collection:

  • PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id> succeeds (HTTP 200)
  • PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id>/users succeeds (HTTP 200)
  • DELETE /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id> succeeds (HTTP 200)

Description

  • The Manager guard checks only whether the user can access the collection, not whether they have manage privileges. This check is directly applied to management endpoints. src/auth.rs:816 ```rust

if !Collection::can_access_collection(&headers.membership, &col_id, &conn).await { err_handler!("The current user isn't a manager for this collection") } ```

  • The can_access_collection function does not evaluate the manage flag. src/db/models/collection.rs:140

```rust

pub async fn can_access_collection(member: &Membership, col_id: &CollectionId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool { member.has_status(MembershipStatus::Confirmed) && (member.has_full_access() || CollectionUser::has_access_to_collection_by_user(col_id, &member.user_uuid, conn).await || ... ```

  • A separate management-permission check exists and includes manage validation, but it is not used during authorization for the affected endpoints. src/db/models/collection.rs:516

```rust

pub async fn is_manageable_by_user(&self, user_uuid: &UserId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool { let Some(member) = Membership::find_confirmed_by_user_and_org(user_uuid, &self.org_uuid, conn).await else { return false; }; if member.has_full_access() { return true; } ... ```

  • The actual update and deletion endpoints only accept ManagerHeaders and do not perform additional manage checks. src/api/core/organizations.rs:608
  async fn put_organization_collection_update(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

src/api/core/organizations.rs:890

  async fn put_collection_users(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

src/api/core/organizations.rs:747

rust async fn delete_organization_collection(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

Preconditions

  • The attacker is a Manager within the target organization.
  • The attacker has access to the target collection (assigned=true).
  • The attacker’s permission for that collection is manage=false.
  • A valid API access token has been obtained.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Confirm that the attacker’s current permissions for the target collection include manage=false. image

  2. As a control test, verify that update operations fail for collections the attacker cannot access. image

  3. Confirm that update operations succeed for the target collection where manage=false. image

  4. Use PUT /collections/{col_id}/users to set manage=true, confirming that the attacker can escalate their own privileges. image

  5. Verify that deletion of the collection succeeds despite the Manager lacking management rights. image

Required Minimum Privileges

  • Organization Manager role (Owner/Admin privileges are not required)
  • Works even with access_all=false
  • Only access rights to the target collection are required (manage privilege is not required)

Attack Scenario

A restricted Manager (intended for read/use-only access) directly invokes the API to update collection settings, elevate their own privileges to manage=true, and even delete the collection.

This allows the user to bypass operational access restrictions and effectively gain administrator-equivalent control over the collection.

Potential Impact

  • Confidentiality: Expansion of access scope through unauthorized privilege escalation and configuration changes.
  • Integrity: Unauthorized modification of collection settings and assignments; potential disabling of access controls.
  • Availability: Deletion of collections may disrupt business operations.
Severity
8.3 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.35.3"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "vaultwarden"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.35.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-27803"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269",
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-04T20:13:44Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nTesting confirmed that even when a Manager has `manage=false` for a given collection, they can still perform the following management operations as long as they have access to the collection:\n\n* `PUT /api/organizations/\u003corg_id\u003e/collections/\u003ccol_id\u003e` succeeds (HTTP 200)\n* `PUT /api/organizations/\u003corg_id\u003e/collections/\u003ccol_id\u003e/users` succeeds (HTTP 200)\n* `DELETE /api/organizations/\u003corg_id\u003e/collections/\u003ccol_id\u003e` succeeds (HTTP 200)\n\n\n\n## Description\n\n* The Manager guard checks only whether the user **can access the collection**, not whether they have `manage` privileges. This check is directly applied to management endpoints.\nsrc/auth.rs:816\n  ```rust\n\n  if !Collection::can_access_collection(\u0026headers.membership, \u0026col_id, \u0026conn).await {\n      err_handler!(\"The current user isn\u0027t a manager for this collection\")\n  }\n  ```\n\n* The `can_access_collection` function does **not** evaluate the `manage` flag.\n  src/db/models/collection.rs:140\n\n  ```rust\n\n  pub async fn can_access_collection(member: \u0026Membership, col_id: \u0026CollectionId, conn: \u0026DbConn) -\u003e bool {\n      member.has_status(MembershipStatus::Confirmed)\n          \u0026\u0026 (member.has_full_access()\n              || CollectionUser::has_access_to_collection_by_user(col_id, \u0026member.user_uuid, conn).await\n              || ...\n  ```\n\n* A separate management-permission check exists and includes `manage` validation, but it is **not used** during authorization for the affected endpoints.\n  src/db/models/collection.rs:516\n\n  ```rust\n\n  pub async fn is_manageable_by_user(\u0026self, user_uuid: \u0026UserId, conn: \u0026DbConn) -\u003e bool {\n      let Some(member) = Membership::find_confirmed_by_user_and_org(user_uuid, \u0026self.org_uuid, conn).await else {\n          return false;\n      };\n      if member.has_full_access() {\n          return true;\n      }\n      ...\n  ```\n\n* The actual update and deletion endpoints only accept `ManagerHeaders` and do not perform additional `manage` checks.\n  src/api/core/organizations.rs:608\n\n```rust\n  async fn put_organization_collection_update(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)\n```\n\n  src/api/core/organizations.rs:890\n\n```rust\n  async fn put_collection_users(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)\n```\n  \n\nsrc/api/core/organizations.rs:747\n\n```rust\n  async fn delete_organization_collection(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)\n  ```\n\n\n\n## Preconditions\n\n* The attacker is a **Manager** within the target organization.\n* The attacker has access to the target collection (`assigned=true`).\n* The attacker\u2019s permission for that collection is `manage=false`.\n* A valid API access token has been obtained.\n\n\n\n## Steps to Reproduce\n\n1. Confirm that the attacker\u2019s current permissions for the target collection include `manage=false`.\n\u003cimg width=\"2015\" height=\"636\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/58ddc733-e37c-4766-a980-b1ea1918ceb4\" /\u003e\n\n2. As a control test, verify that update operations fail for collections the attacker cannot access.\n\u003cimg width=\"2021\" height=\"852\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d8699442-2dfc-4d73-8940-ec10f4a175f0\" /\u003e\n\n3. Confirm that update operations succeed for the target collection where `manage=false`.\n\u003cimg width=\"2013\" height=\"690\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/33d9845d-d18e-456c-a58c-e780911347a9\" /\u003e\n\n4. Use `PUT /collections/{col_id}/users` to set `manage=true`, confirming that the attacker can escalate their own privileges.\n\u003cimg width=\"2018\" height=\"488\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/da8c5246-cf2a-46c2-9a25-e99d907f852d\" /\u003e\n\n5. Verify that deletion of the collection succeeds despite the Manager lacking management rights.\n\u003cimg width=\"2018\" height=\"487\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a97c8fb2-4f97-4c2a-a90b-9d95dbde84fd\" /\u003e\n\n\n\n## Required Minimum Privileges\n\n* Organization Manager role (Owner/Admin privileges are not required)\n* Works even with `access_all=false`\n* Only access rights to the target collection are required (`manage` privilege is not required)\n\n\n\n## Attack Scenario\n\nA restricted Manager (intended for read/use-only access) directly invokes the API to update collection settings, elevate their own privileges to `manage=true`, and even delete the collection.\n\nThis allows the user to bypass operational access restrictions and effectively gain administrator-equivalent control over the collection.\n\n\n\n## Potential Impact\n\n* **Confidentiality:** Expansion of access scope through unauthorized privilege escalation and configuration changes.\n* **Integrity:** Unauthorized modification of collection settings and assignments; potential disabling of access controls.\n* **Availability:** Deletion of collections may disrupt business operations.",
  "id": "GHSA-h4hq-rgvh-wh27",
  "modified": "2026-03-04T20:13:44Z",
  "published": "2026-03-04T20:13:44Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/security/advisories/GHSA-h4hq-rgvh-wh27"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden"
    }
  ],
  "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:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Vaultwarden\u0027s Collection Management Operations Allowed Without `manage` Verification for Manager Role"
}

GHSA-H4MF-75HF-67W4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2020-03-04 20:20 – Updated: 2021-01-08 20:27
VLAI
Summary
Information disclosure in parse-server
Details
  1. you can fetch all the users' objects, by using regex in the NoSQL query. Using the NoSQL, you can use a regex on sessionToken ("_SessionToken":{"$regex":"r:027f"}} and find valid accounts this way.

Using this method, it's possible to retrieve accounts without interaction from the users.

GET /parse/users/me HTTP/1.1

{
  "_ApplicationId": "appName",
  "_JavaScriptKey": "javascriptkey",
  "_ClientVersion": "js2.10.0",
  "_InstallationId": "ca713ee2-6e60-d023-a8fe-14e1bfb2f300",
  "_SessionToken": {
    "$regex": "r:5"
  }
}

When trying it with an update query the same thing luckily doesn't seem to work: POST /parse/classes/_User/PPNk59jPPZ

  1. There is another similar vulnerability in verify email and the request password reset.

If you sign up with someone else's email address, you can simply use regex in the token param to verify the account: http://localhost:1337/parse/apps/kickbox/verify_email?token[$regex]=a&username=some@email.com

The same thing can be done for reset password: http://localhost:1337/parse/apps/kickbox/request_password_reset?token[$regex]=a&username=some@email.com

You may need to do it a few times with a different letter/number, but as long as the tokens contain the character it will succeed.

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

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.0.0"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "parse-server"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.1.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-5251"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-200",
      "CWE-285"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2020-03-04T19:54:37Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "1. you can fetch all the users\u0027 objects, by using regex in the NoSQL query.\nUsing the NoSQL, you can use a regex on sessionToken `(\"_SessionToken\":{\"$regex\":\"r:027f\"}}` and find valid accounts this way.\n\nUsing this method, it\u0027s possible to retrieve accounts without interaction from the users.\n\nGET /parse/users/me HTTP/1.1\n```\n{\n  \"_ApplicationId\": \"appName\",\n  \"_JavaScriptKey\": \"javascriptkey\",\n  \"_ClientVersion\": \"js2.10.0\",\n  \"_InstallationId\": \"ca713ee2-6e60-d023-a8fe-14e1bfb2f300\",\n  \"_SessionToken\": {\n    \"$regex\": \"r:5\"\n  }\n}\n```\nWhen trying it with an update query the same thing luckily doesn\u0027t seem to work:\nPOST /parse/classes/_User/PPNk59jPPZ\n\n2. There is another similar vulnerability in verify email and the request password reset.\n\nIf you sign up with someone else\u0027s email address, you can simply use regex in the token param to verify the account: `http://localhost:1337/parse/apps/kickbox/verify_email?token[$regex]=a\u0026username=some@email.com`\n\nThe same thing can be done for reset password: `http://localhost:1337/parse/apps/kickbox/request_password_reset?token[$regex]=a\u0026username=some@email.com`\n\nYou may need to do it a few times with a different letter/number, but as long as the tokens contain the character it will succeed.",
  "id": "GHSA-h4mf-75hf-67w4",
  "modified": "2021-01-08T20:27:29Z",
  "published": "2020-03-04T20:20:27Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/security/advisories/GHSA-h4mf-75hf-67w4"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-5251"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/commit/3a3a5eee5ffa48da1352423312cb767de14de269"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Information disclosure in parse-server"
}

GHSA-H6XX-PMXH-3WGP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-12 22:41 – Updated: 2023-08-30 11:13
VLAI
Summary
go.etcd.io/etcd Authentication Bypass
Details

etcd versions 3.2.x before 3.2.26 and 3.3.x before 3.3.11 are vulnerable to an improper authentication issue when role-based access control (RBAC) is used and client-cert-auth is enabled. If an etcd client server TLS certificate contains a Common Name (CN) which matches a valid RBAC username, a remote attacker may authenticate as that user with any valid (trusted) client certificate in a REST API request to the gRPC-gateway.

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

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "go.etcd.io/etcd/v3"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "3.2.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.2.26"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "go.etcd.io/etcd/v3"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "3.3.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.3.11"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "go.etcd.io/etcd"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.5.0-alpha.5.0.20190108173120-83c051b701d3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-16886"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-19T21:49:34Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "etcd versions 3.2.x before 3.2.26 and 3.3.x before 3.3.11 are vulnerable to an improper authentication issue when role-based access control (RBAC) is used and client-cert-auth is enabled. If an etcd client server TLS certificate contains a Common Name (CN) which matches a valid RBAC username, a remote attacker may authenticate as that user with any valid (trusted) client certificate in a REST API request to the gRPC-gateway.",
  "id": "GHSA-h6xx-pmxh-3wgp",
  "modified": "2023-08-30T11:13:45Z",
  "published": "2022-04-12T22:41:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-16886"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/10366"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/commit/0191509637546621d6f2e18e074e955ab8ef374d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/commit/bf9d0d8291dc71ecbfb2690612954e1a298154b2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:0237"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1352"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2018-16886"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/1eee465a43720d713bb69f7b7f5e120135fdb1ac/CHANGELOG-3.2.md#security-authentication"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/1eee465a43720d713bb69f7b7f5e120135fdb1ac/CHANGELOG-3.3.md#security-authentication"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JX7QTIT465BQGRGNCE74RATRQLKT2QE4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UPGYHMSKDPW5GAMI7BEP3XQRVRLLBJKS"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2021-0077"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106540"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "go.etcd.io/etcd Authentication Bypass"
}
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
  • Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
  • Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

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

Mitigation MIT-4.4
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

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

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

CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs

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

CAPEC-104: Cross Zone Scripting

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

CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing

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

CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values

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

CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files

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

CAPEC-39: Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens

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

CAPEC-402: Bypassing ATA Password Security

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

CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links

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

CAPEC-5: Blue Boxing

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

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

CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry

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

CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction

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

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

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

CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries

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

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

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

CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls

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

CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables

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

CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing

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

← Back to the CWE list