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.
2305 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-HQ4M-4948-64CC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-05 17:10 – Updated: 2023-06-05 17:10Impact
In versions of Kyverno prior to 1.10.0, resources which have the deletionTimestamp field defined can bypass validate, generate, or mutate-existing policies, even in cases where the validationFailureAction field is set to Enforce.
This situation occurs as resources pending deletion were being consciously exempted by Kyverno, as a way to reduce processing load as policies are typically not applied to objects which are being deleted.
However, this could potentially result in allowing a malicious user to leverage the Kubernetes finalizers feature by setting a finalizer which causes the Kubernetes API server to set the deletionTimestamp and then not completing the delete operation as a way to explicitly to bypass a Kyverno policy.
Note that this is not applicable to Kubernetes Pods but, as an example, a Kubernetes Service resource can be manipulated using an indefinite finalizer to bypass policies.
Patches
This is resolved in Kyverno 1.10.0.
Workarounds
There is no known workaround.
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kyverno/kyverno"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.10.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-34091"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-06-05T17:10:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-01T17:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nIn versions of Kyverno prior to 1.10.0, resources which have the `deletionTimestamp` field defined can bypass validate, generate, or mutate-existing policies, even in cases where the `validationFailureAction` field is set to `Enforce`. \n\nThis situation occurs as resources pending deletion were being consciously exempted by Kyverno, as a way to reduce processing load as policies are typically not applied to objects which are being deleted. \n\nHowever, this could potentially result in allowing a malicious user to leverage the [Kubernetes finalizers feature](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/working-with-objects/finalizers/) by setting a finalizer which causes the Kubernetes API server to set the `deletionTimestamp` and then not completing the delete operation as a way to explicitly to bypass a Kyverno policy. \n\nNote that this is not applicable to Kubernetes Pods but, as an example, a Kubernetes Service resource can be manipulated using an indefinite finalizer to bypass policies.\n\n\n### Patches\nThis is resolved in Kyverno 1.10.0.\n\n### Workarounds\nThere is no known workaround.\n\n### References\n_Are there any links users can visit to find out more?_\n",
"id": "GHSA-hq4m-4948-64cc",
"modified": "2023-06-05T17:10:13Z",
"published": "2023-06-05T17:10:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno/security/advisories/GHSA-hq4m-4948-64cc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-34091"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno/releases/tag/v1.10.0"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Kyverno resource with a deletionTimestamp may allow policy circumvention"
}
GHSA-HQ7G-6QMJ-684H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-13 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:54Parameter verification vulnerability in the installd module. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause sandbox files to be read and written without authorization.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39401"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-13T13:15:12Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Parameter verification vulnerability in the installd module. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause sandbox files to be read and written without authorization.",
"id": "GHSA-hq7g-6qmj-684h",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:54:13Z",
"published": "2023-08-13T15:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39401"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2023/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/en/docs/security/update/security-bulletins-202308-0000001667644725"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HQXQ-HWQF-WG83
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-08 19:23 – Updated: 2026-04-10 15:00Summary
A transaction integrity flaw allows an authenticated tenant user to soft-delete synced non-manual transactions through the transaction update endpoint, despite the application explicitly blocking deletion of those transactions via the normal DELETE path. This bypass undermines the intended protection for imported transaction records and allows protected transactions to be hidden from normal views.
Details
The issue affects the transaction update path for synced transactions associated with non-manual links. The intended policy is clearly enforced in the DELETE handler: deletion of synced transactions for non-manual links is rejected with an error indicating that such transactions cannot be deleted.
However, the PUT update path still accepts a client-controlled full Transaction object and persists fields that should be server-managed, including deletedAt. The update logic appears to restrict only selected fields, which leaves deletedAt attacker-controllable.
Verified behavior on the same synced transaction showed:
DELETEwas denied with the expected protection error for non-manual linksPUTwith a user-supplieddeletedAtvalue succeeded and returned200 OK- a subsequent transaction list no longer showed the transaction
GETby transaction ID still returned the record withdeletedAtpopulated
This demonstrates a policy bypass: although the server explicitly defines synced transactions on non-manual links as non-deletable through the dedicated delete route, the same outcome can still be achieved through the update route by setting the soft-delete field directly.
The vulnerability is therefore not a simple UI inconsistency. It is a server-side authorization and integrity flaw caused by trusting a client-supplied full transaction object and failing to protect sensitive server-managed fields from modification.
PoC
The issue can be reproduced by identifying a synced transaction on a non-manual link, confirming that the normal DELETE route rejects deletion, then submitting an update request that sets the transaction’s deletedAt field. The transaction will then disappear from normal listing views even though direct retrieval still shows the record as soft-deleted.
Impact
- Type: Authorization bypass / integrity violation
- Who is impacted: Authenticated tenant users and any deployment relying on synced transaction immutability for non-manual links
- Security impact: Attackers can hide or effectively delete protected imported transactions that should not be deletable, compromising transaction history, bookkeeping integrity, and trust in audit-relevant server-managed fields
- Attack preconditions: The attacker must be authenticated and able to access a synced transaction within their own tenant/account scope
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.12.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/monetr/monetr"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39901"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-08T19:23:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-08T22:16:22Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA transaction integrity flaw allows an authenticated tenant user to soft-delete synced non-manual transactions through the transaction update endpoint, despite the application explicitly blocking deletion of those transactions via the normal `DELETE` path. This bypass undermines the intended protection for imported transaction records and allows protected transactions to be hidden from normal views.\n\n### Details\nThe issue affects the transaction update path for synced transactions associated with non-manual links. The intended policy is clearly enforced in the `DELETE` handler: deletion of synced transactions for non-manual links is rejected with an error indicating that such transactions cannot be deleted.\n\nHowever, the `PUT` update path still accepts a client-controlled full `Transaction` object and persists fields that should be server-managed, including `deletedAt`. The update logic appears to restrict only selected fields, which leaves `deletedAt` attacker-controllable.\n\nVerified behavior on the same synced transaction showed:\n\n- `DELETE` was denied with the expected protection error for non-manual links\n- `PUT` with a user-supplied `deletedAt` value succeeded and returned `200 OK`\n- a subsequent transaction list no longer showed the transaction\n- `GET` by transaction ID still returned the record with `deletedAt` populated\n\nThis demonstrates a policy bypass: although the server explicitly defines synced transactions on non-manual links as non-deletable through the dedicated delete route, the same outcome can still be achieved through the update route by setting the soft-delete field directly.\n\nThe vulnerability is therefore not a simple UI inconsistency. It is a server-side authorization and integrity flaw caused by trusting a client-supplied full transaction object and failing to protect sensitive server-managed fields from modification.\n\n### PoC\nThe issue can be reproduced by identifying a synced transaction on a non-manual link, confirming that the normal `DELETE` route rejects deletion, then submitting an update request that sets the transaction\u2019s `deletedAt` field. The transaction will then disappear from normal listing views even though direct retrieval still shows the record as soft-deleted.\n\n### Impact\n- **Type:** Authorization bypass / integrity violation\n- **Who is impacted:** Authenticated tenant users and any deployment relying on synced transaction immutability for non-manual links\n- **Security impact:** Attackers can hide or effectively delete protected imported transactions that should not be deletable, compromising transaction history, bookkeeping integrity, and trust in audit-relevant server-managed fields\n- **Attack preconditions:** The attacker must be authenticated and able to access a synced transaction within their own tenant/account scope",
"id": "GHSA-hqxq-hwqf-wg83",
"modified": "2026-04-10T15:00:12Z",
"published": "2026-04-08T19:23:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/monetr/monetr/security/advisories/GHSA-hqxq-hwqf-wg83"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39901"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/monetr/monetr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/monetr/monetr/releases/tag/v1.12.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "monetr: Protected Transactions Deletable via PUT"
}
GHSA-HRCP-JQFC-JX4P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-01 15:30 – Updated: 2025-10-28 21:30Kazaar 1.25.12 allows /api/v1/org-id/orders/order-id/documents calls with a modified order-id.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59686"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-01T15:15:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Kazaar 1.25.12 allows /api/v1/org-id/orders/order-id/documents calls with a modified order-id.",
"id": "GHSA-hrcp-jqfc-jx4p",
"modified": "2025-10-28T21:30:29Z",
"published": "2025-10-01T15:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Henkel-CyberVM/CVEs/tree/main/CVE-2025-59686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kazaar.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HRPP-92F9-H887
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-05 18:34 – Updated: 2025-02-05 18:34A vulnerability in an API of Cisco ISE could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with valid read-only credentials to obtain sensitive information, change node configurations, and restart the node.
This vulnerability is due to a lack of authorization in a specific API and improper validation of user-supplied data. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted HTTP request to a specific API on the device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to attacker to obtain information, modify system configuration, and reload the device. Note: To successfully exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid read-only administrative credentials. In a single-node deployment, new devices will not be able to authenticate during the reload time.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-20125"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-05T17:15:22Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in an API of Cisco ISE could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with valid read-only credentials to obtain sensitive information, change node configurations, and restart the node.\n\nThis vulnerability is due to a lack of authorization in a specific API and improper validation of user-supplied data. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted HTTP request to a specific API on the device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to attacker to obtain information, modify system configuration, and reload the device.\nNote:\u0026nbsp;To successfully exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid read-only administrative credentials. In a single-node deployment, new devices will not be able to authenticate during the reload time.",
"id": "GHSA-hrpp-92f9-h887",
"modified": "2025-02-05T18:34:45Z",
"published": "2025-02-05T18:34:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-20125"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ise-multivuls-FTW9AOXF"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HV38-H5PJ-C96J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-16 14:37 – Updated: 2024-11-18 16:27In OpenDaylight Model-Driven Service Abstraction Layer (MD-SAL) through 13.0.1, a controller with a follower role can configure flow entries in an OpenDaylight clustering deployment.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.opendaylight.mdsal:mdsal-artifacts"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "13.0.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-46942"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-09-16T20:16:14Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-15T23:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In OpenDaylight Model-Driven Service Abstraction Layer (MD-SAL) through 13.0.1, a controller with a follower role can configure flow entries in an OpenDaylight clustering deployment.",
"id": "GHSA-hv38-h5pj-c96j",
"modified": "2024-11-18T16:27:12Z",
"published": "2024-09-16T14:37:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46942"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.opendaylight.org/en/latest/release-notes/projects/mdsal.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.16940"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/opendaylight/mdsal"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lf-opendaylight.atlassian.net/browse/MDSAL-869"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenDaylight Model-Driven Service Abstraction Layer (MD-SAL) allows follower controller to set up flow entries"
}
GHSA-HV3F-MJFX-H726
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-13 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:54Parameter verification vulnerability in the installd module. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause sandbox files to be read and written without authorization.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39402"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-13T13:15:13Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Parameter verification vulnerability in the installd module. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause sandbox files to be read and written without authorization.",
"id": "GHSA-hv3f-mjfx-h726",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:54:12Z",
"published": "2023-08-13T15:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39402"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2023/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/en/docs/security/update/security-bulletins-202308-0000001667644725"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HVF5-4JR9-FGHH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:33 – Updated: 2025-02-10 20:36Magento version 2.4.0 and 2.3.5p1 (and earlier) are affected by an incorrect permissions vulnerability in the Integrations component. This vulnerability could be abused by authenticated users with permissions to the Resource Access API to delete customer details via the REST API without authorization.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"2.4.0"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/project-community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-24402"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-276",
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-11T17:41:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-11-09T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Magento version 2.4.0 and 2.3.5p1 (and earlier) are affected by an incorrect permissions vulnerability in the Integrations component. This vulnerability could be abused by authenticated users with permissions to the Resource Access API to delete customer details via the REST API without authorization.",
"id": "GHSA-hvf5-4jr9-fghh",
"modified": "2025-02-10T20:36:41Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:33:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-24402"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb20-59.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Magento incorrect permissions vulnerability in the Integrations component"
}
GHSA-HVHR-9472-4FW9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-26 18:30 – Updated: 2025-03-26 21:31Improper authorization in application password policy in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager on Windows allows an authenticated user to use a configuration different from the one mandated by the system administrators.
This issue affects Remote Desktop Manager versions from 2025.1.24 through 2025.1.25, and all versions up to 2024.3.29.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-2528"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-26T18:15:26Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Improper authorization in application password policy in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager on Windows allows an authenticated user to \nuse a configuration different from the one mandated by the system administrators.\n\n\n\n\n\nThis issue affects Remote Desktop Manager versions from 2025.1.24 through 2025.1.25, and all versions up to 2024.3.29.",
"id": "GHSA-hvhr-9472-4fw9",
"modified": "2025-03-26T21:31:06Z",
"published": "2025-03-26T18:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-2528"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://devolutions.net/security/advisories/DEVO-2025-0005"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HWC3-3QH6-R4GG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-30 03:30 – Updated: 2023-04-07 19:22HashiCorp Vault's PKI mount issuer endpoints did not correctly authorize access to remove an issuer or modify issuer metadata, potentially resulting in denial of service of the PKI mount. This bug did not affect public or private key material, trust chains or certificate issuance. Fixed in Vault 1.13.1, 1.12.5, and 1.11.9.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.11.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.12.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0665"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-04-07T19:22:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-30T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "HashiCorp Vault\u0027s PKI mount issuer endpoints did not correctly authorize access to remove an issuer or modify issuer metadata, potentially resulting in denial of service of the PKI mount. This bug did not affect public or private key material, trust chains or certificate issuance. Fixed in Vault 1.13.1, 1.12.5, and 1.11.9.",
"id": "GHSA-hwc3-3qh6-r4gg",
"modified": "2023-04-07T19:22:54Z",
"published": "2023-03-30T03:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0665"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2023-11-vault-s-pki-issuer-endpoint-did-not-correctly-authorize-access-to-issuer-metadata/52079/1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230526-0008"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "HashiCorp Vault\u0027s PKI mount vulnerable to denial of service"
}
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.