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.
2304 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-M577-W9J8-CH7J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-01 21:07 – Updated: 2026-04-01 21:07Summary
AVideo's video processing pipeline accepts an overrideStatus request parameter that allows any uploader to set a video's status to any valid state, including "active" (a). This bypasses the admin-controlled moderation and draft workflows. The setStatus() method validates the status code against a list of known values but does not verify that the caller has permission to set that particular status. As a result, any user with upload permissions can publish videos directly, circumventing content review processes.
Details
At objects/video.php:1055-1056, the video object checks for an overrideStatus parameter in the request and applies it directly:
if (!empty($_REQUEST['overrideStatus'])) {
return $this->setStatus($_REQUEST['overrideStatus']);
}
This code is reached from two entry points:
- objects/videoAddNew.json.php:157 - when adding a new video
- objects/aVideoEncoder.json.php:114 - when processing an encoded video
The setStatus() method validates that the provided status code is one of the recognized values (a, k, i, h, e, x, d, t, u, s, r, f, b, p, c) but does not perform any authorization check. It does not verify whether the calling user has permission to set a video to the requested status.
The relevant status codes include:
- a - Active (published and publicly visible)
- k - Draft (pending review)
- i - Inactive
- e - Encoding
- x - Deleted
- u - Unlisted
When an admin configures the platform to require moderation (new videos default to draft/pending status), any uploader can bypass this by including overrideStatus=a in their upload request.
Proof of Concept
-
Assume the AVideo instance has moderation enabled (new videos default to draft status
k). -
Upload a video as a regular user, including the
overrideStatusparameter:
curl -b "PHPSESSID=USER_SESSION" \
-X POST "https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/videoAddNew.json.php" \
-F "title=Bypassed Moderation" \
-F "description=This video skips the review queue" \
-F "videoLink=https://example.com/video.mp4" \
-F "overrideStatus=a"
-
The video is immediately set to active status and is publicly visible, bypassing the admin moderation workflow.
-
Verify the video is publicly accessible:
curl -s "https://your-avideo-instance.com/video/VIDEO_CLEAN_TITLE" | grep -o "<title>.*</title>"
- An uploader can also use this to set other statuses:
# Set a video to "unlisted" even if the platform restricts this
curl -b "PHPSESSID=USER_SESSION" \
-X POST "https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/videoAddNew.json.php" \
-F "title=Unlisted Video" \
-F "videoLink=https://example.com/video.mp4" \
-F "overrideStatus=u"
Impact
Any user with upload permissions can bypass content moderation by setting videos directly to active status. This undermines the platform's ability to enforce content policies, review uploads before publication, or maintain a moderation queue. On platforms that rely on moderation for legal compliance (e.g., DMCA, age-gated content), this bypass could have regulatory consequences. The same mechanism also allows uploaders to set arbitrary statuses like "unlisted" or "inactive" on their own videos, bypassing platform-level restrictions on these features.
- CWE-285: Improper Authorization
- Severity: Medium
Recommended Fix
Add an authorization check before applying the overrideStatus parameter at objects/video.php:1055:
// objects/video.php:1055
if (!empty($_REQUEST['overrideStatus']) && (User::isAdmin() || Permissions::canAdminVideos())) {
return $this->setStatus($_REQUEST['overrideStatus']);
}
This ensures that only administrators or users with video management permissions can override the video publishing status. Regular uploaders will follow the normal moderation workflow.
Found by aisafe.io
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "wwbn/avideo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "26.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34738"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-01T21:07:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T21:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nAVideo\u0027s video processing pipeline accepts an `overrideStatus` request parameter that allows any uploader to set a video\u0027s status to any valid state, including \"active\" (`a`). This bypasses the admin-controlled moderation and draft workflows. The `setStatus()` method validates the status code against a list of known values but does not verify that the caller has permission to set that particular status. As a result, any user with upload permissions can publish videos directly, circumventing content review processes.\n\n## Details\n\nAt `objects/video.php:1055-1056`, the video object checks for an `overrideStatus` parameter in the request and applies it directly:\n\n```php\nif (!empty($_REQUEST[\u0027overrideStatus\u0027])) {\n return $this-\u003esetStatus($_REQUEST[\u0027overrideStatus\u0027]);\n}\n```\n\nThis code is reached from two entry points:\n- `objects/videoAddNew.json.php:157` - when adding a new video\n- `objects/aVideoEncoder.json.php:114` - when processing an encoded video\n\nThe `setStatus()` method validates that the provided status code is one of the recognized values (`a`, `k`, `i`, `h`, `e`, `x`, `d`, `t`, `u`, `s`, `r`, `f`, `b`, `p`, `c`) but does not perform any authorization check. It does not verify whether the calling user has permission to set a video to the requested status.\n\nThe relevant status codes include:\n- `a` - Active (published and publicly visible)\n- `k` - Draft (pending review)\n- `i` - Inactive\n- `e` - Encoding\n- `x` - Deleted\n- `u` - Unlisted\n\nWhen an admin configures the platform to require moderation (new videos default to draft/pending status), any uploader can bypass this by including `overrideStatus=a` in their upload request.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n1. Assume the AVideo instance has moderation enabled (new videos default to draft status `k`).\n\n2. Upload a video as a regular user, including the `overrideStatus` parameter:\n\n```bash\ncurl -b \"PHPSESSID=USER_SESSION\" \\\n -X POST \"https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/videoAddNew.json.php\" \\\n -F \"title=Bypassed Moderation\" \\\n -F \"description=This video skips the review queue\" \\\n -F \"videoLink=https://example.com/video.mp4\" \\\n -F \"overrideStatus=a\"\n```\n\n3. The video is immediately set to active status and is publicly visible, bypassing the admin moderation workflow.\n\n4. Verify the video is publicly accessible:\n\n```bash\ncurl -s \"https://your-avideo-instance.com/video/VIDEO_CLEAN_TITLE\" | grep -o \"\u003ctitle\u003e.*\u003c/title\u003e\"\n```\n\n5. An uploader can also use this to set other statuses:\n\n```bash\n# Set a video to \"unlisted\" even if the platform restricts this\ncurl -b \"PHPSESSID=USER_SESSION\" \\\n -X POST \"https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/videoAddNew.json.php\" \\\n -F \"title=Unlisted Video\" \\\n -F \"videoLink=https://example.com/video.mp4\" \\\n -F \"overrideStatus=u\"\n```\n\n## Impact\n\nAny user with upload permissions can bypass content moderation by setting videos directly to active status. This undermines the platform\u0027s ability to enforce content policies, review uploads before publication, or maintain a moderation queue. On platforms that rely on moderation for legal compliance (e.g., DMCA, age-gated content), this bypass could have regulatory consequences. The same mechanism also allows uploaders to set arbitrary statuses like \"unlisted\" or \"inactive\" on their own videos, bypassing platform-level restrictions on these features.\n\n- **CWE-285**: Improper Authorization\n- **Severity**: Medium\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nAdd an authorization check before applying the `overrideStatus` parameter at `objects/video.php:1055`:\n\n```php\n// objects/video.php:1055\nif (!empty($_REQUEST[\u0027overrideStatus\u0027]) \u0026\u0026 (User::isAdmin() || Permissions::canAdminVideos())) {\n return $this-\u003esetStatus($_REQUEST[\u0027overrideStatus\u0027]);\n}\n```\n\nThis ensures that only administrators or users with video management permissions can override the video publishing status. Regular uploaders will follow the normal moderation workflow.\n\n---\n*Found by [aisafe.io](https://aisafe.io)*",
"id": "GHSA-m577-w9j8-ch7j",
"modified": "2026-04-01T21:07:24Z",
"published": "2026-04-01T21:07:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/security/advisories/GHSA-m577-w9j8-ch7j"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34738"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/commit/34f0237e2449d2e564a69fe3c5c71c830f5d11fd"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "AVideo: Video Publishing Workflow Bypass via Unauthorized overrideStatus Request Parameter"
}
GHSA-M5C9-MWVJ-33FC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:31 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:31Pagure 3.3.0 and earlier is vulnerable to loss of confidentially due to improper authorization
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1002151"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-09-14T13:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Pagure 3.3.0 and earlier is vulnerable to loss of confidentially due to improper authorization",
"id": "GHSA-m5c9-mwvj-33fc",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:31:06Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:31:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1002151"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pagure.io/pagure/c/c92108097e8ae4702c115ae4702b63d960838e75.patch"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pagure.io/pagure/pull-request/2426"
}
],
"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-M5Q3-X5VG-97F9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-03 00:30 – Updated: 2025-09-03 00:30A vulnerability was found in macrozheng mall up to 1.0.3. This vulnerability affects the function paySuccess of the file /order/paySuccess. The manipulation of the argument orderId results in authorization bypass. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9836"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-02T22:15:33Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in macrozheng mall up to 1.0.3. This vulnerability affects the function paySuccess of the file /order/paySuccess. The manipulation of the argument orderId results in authorization bypass. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.",
"id": "GHSA-m5q3-x5vg-97f9",
"modified": "2025-09-03T00:30:56Z",
"published": "2025-09-03T00:30:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9836"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ez-lbz/poc/issues/47"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ez-lbz/poc/issues/47#issue-3354493935"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.322183"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.322183"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.641738"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-M653-M4XM-RXRR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 21:15 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:48In versions of Splunk Enterprise below 9.0.5, 8.2.11, and 8.1.14, and Splunk Cloud Platform below version 9.0.2303.100, a low-privileged user who holds a role that has the ‘edit_user’ capability assigned to it can escalate their privileges to that of the admin user by providing specially crafted web requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-32707"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-01T17:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In versions of Splunk Enterprise below 9.0.5, 8.2.11, and 8.1.14, and Splunk Cloud Platform below version 9.0.2303.100, a low-privileged user who holds a role that has the \u2018edit_user\u2019 capability assigned to it can escalate their privileges to that of the admin user by providing specially crafted web requests.",
"id": "GHSA-m653-m4xm-rxrr",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:48:07Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T21:15:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-32707"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisory.splunk.com/advisories/SVD-2023-0602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://research.splunk.com/application/39e1c326-67d7-4c0d-8584-8056354f6593"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/174602/Splunk-Enterprise-Account-Takeover.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/175386/Splunk-edit_user-Capability-Privilege-Escalation.html"
}
],
"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-M69H-JM2F-2PV8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 20:54 – Updated: 2026-03-13 20:54Summary
A Feishu reaction-originated synthetic event could misclassify a group conversation as p2p when the inbound reaction payload omitted chat_type. Authorization and mention-gating logic keyed off that incorrect chat type and evaluated the event as a direct message instead of a group message.
Impact
This could bypass groupAllowFrom and requireMention protections for reaction-derived events in Feishu group chats.
Affected versions
openclaw <= 2026.3.11
Patch
Fixed in openclaw 2026.3.12. Reaction events now preserve the correct group context before authorization and mention-gate evaluation. Users should update to 2026.3.12 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2026.3.11"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.3.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-13T20:54:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA Feishu reaction-originated synthetic event could misclassify a group conversation as `p2p` when the inbound reaction payload omitted `chat_type`. Authorization and mention-gating logic keyed off that incorrect chat type and evaluated the event as a direct message instead of a group message.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis could bypass `groupAllowFrom` and `requireMention` protections for reaction-derived events in Feishu group chats.\n\n### Affected versions\n\n`openclaw` `\u003c= 2026.3.11`\n\n### Patch\n\nFixed in `openclaw` `2026.3.12`. Reaction events now preserve the correct group context before authorization and mention-gate evaluation. Users should update to `2026.3.12` or later.",
"id": "GHSA-m69h-jm2f-2pv8",
"modified": "2026-03-13T20:54:30Z",
"published": "2026-03-13T20:54:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-m69h-jm2f-2pv8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/44088"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/3e730c0332eb0a3dc9e1e8c29a5f95e933317b41"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.3.12"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Feishu reaction events could bypass group authorization and mention gating"
}
GHSA-M6QJ-CQ3X-JRRF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:02 – Updated: 2022-07-31 00:00Low privileged users can use the AJAX action 'cp_plugins_do_button_job_later_callback' in the Visitor Traffic Real Time Statistics WordPress plugin before 2.12, 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-2021-24193"
],
"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 Visitor Traffic Real Time Statistics WordPress plugin before 2.12, 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-m6qj-cq3x-jrrf",
"modified": "2022-07-31T00:00:58Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:02:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24193"
},
{
"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-M6R5-4FC9-XQJX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-07 03:30 – Updated: 2025-05-07 03:30The PeproDev Ultimate Profile Solutions plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the handel_ajax_req() function in versions 1.9.1 to 7.5.2. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update arbitrary user's metadata which can be leveraged to block an administrator from accessing their site when wp_capabilities is set to 0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3921"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-07T03:15:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The PeproDev Ultimate Profile Solutions plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the handel_ajax_req() function in versions 1.9.1 to 7.5.2. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update arbitrary user\u0027s metadata which can be leveraged to block an administrator from accessing their site when wp_capabilities is set to 0.",
"id": "GHSA-m6r5-4fc9-xqjx",
"modified": "2025-05-07T03:30:28Z",
"published": "2025-05-07T03:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3921"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/peprodev-ups/tags/7.5.2/login/login.php#L1483"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/peprodev-ups/#developers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a881ca02-cef9-4f4b-8a62-e241c4c80004?source=cve"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M732-5P4W-X69G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-22 15:21 – Updated: 2025-10-23 17:38Improper Authorization in Hono (JWT Audience Validation)
Hono’s JWT authentication middleware did not validate the aud (Audience) claim by default. As a result, applications using the middleware without an explicit audience check could accept tokens intended for other audiences, leading to potential cross-service access (token mix-up).
The issue is addressed by adding a new verification.aud configuration option to allow RFC 7519–compliant audience validation. This change is classified as a security hardening improvement, but the lack of validation can still be considered a vulnerability in deployments that rely on default JWT verification.
Recommended secure configuration
You can enable RFC 7519–compliant audience validation using the new verification.aud option:
import { Hono } from 'hono'
import { jwt } from 'hono/jwt'
const app = new Hono()
app.use(
'/api/*',
jwt({
secret: 'my-secret',
verification: {
// Require this API to only accept tokens with aud = 'service-a'
aud: 'service-a',
},
})
)
Below is the original description by the reporter. For security reasons, it does not include PoC reproduction steps, as the vulnerability can be clearly understood from the technical description.
The original description by the reporter
Summary
Hono’s JWT Auth Middleware does not provide a built-in aud (Audience) verification option, which can cause confused-deputy / token-mix-up issues: an API may accept a valid token that was issued for a different audience (e.g., another service) when multiple services share the same issuer/keys. This can lead to unintended cross-service access. Hono’s docs list verification options for iss/nbf/iat/exp only, with no aud support; RFC 7519 requires that when an aud claim is present, tokens MUST be rejected unless the processing party identifies itself in that claim.
Note: This problem likely exists in the JWK/JWKS-based middleware as well (e.g., jwk / verifyWithJwks)
Details
- The middleware’s
verifyOptionsenumerate onlyiss,nbf,iat, andexp; there is noaudoption. The same omission appears in the JWT Helper’s “Payload Validation” list. Developers relying on the middleware for complete standards-aligned validation therefore won’t check audience by default. - Standards requirement: RFC 7519 §4.1.3 states that each principal intended to process the JWT MUST identify itself with a value in the
audclaim; if it does not, the JWT MUST be rejected (whenaudis present). Lack of a first-classaudcheck increases the risk that tokens issued for Service B are accepted by Service A. - Real-world effect: In deployments with a single IdP/JWKS and shared keys across multiple services, a token minted for one audience can be mistakenly accepted by another audience unless developers implement a custom audience check.
- For example, with Google Identity (OIDC), iss is always https://accounts.google.com (shared across apps), but aud differs per application because it is that app’s OAuth client ID; therefore, an attacker can host a separate service that supports “Sign in with Google,” obtain a valid ID token (JWT) for the victim user, and—if your API does not verify aud—use that token to access your API with the victim’s privileges.
Impact
Type: Authentication/authorization weakness via token mix-up (confused-deputy).
Who is impacted: Any Hono user who:
- shares an issuer/keys across multiple services (common with a single IdP/JWKS)
- distinguishes tokens by intended recipient using aud.
What can happen: - Cross-service access: A token for Service B may be accepted by Service A. - Boundary erosion: ID tokens and access tokens, or separate API audiences, can be inadvertently intermixed. - This may causes unauthorized invocation of sensitive endpoints.
Recommended remediation:
1) Add verifyOptions.aud (string | string[] | RegExp) to the middleware and enforce RFC 7519 semantics: In verify method, if aud is present and does not match with specified audiences, reject.
2) Ensure equivalent aud handling exists in the JWK/JWKS flow (jwk middleware / verifyWithJwks) so users of external IdPs can enforce audience consistently.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "hono"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.10.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62610"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-10-22T15:21:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-22T20:15:38Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Improper Authorization in Hono (JWT Audience Validation)\n\nHono\u2019s JWT authentication middleware did not validate the `aud` (Audience) claim by default. As a result, applications using the middleware without an explicit audience check could accept tokens intended for other audiences, leading to potential cross-service access (token mix-up).\n\nThe issue is addressed by adding a new `verification.aud` configuration option to allow RFC 7519\u2013compliant audience validation. This change is classified as a **security hardening improvement**, but the lack of validation can still be considered a vulnerability in deployments that rely on default JWT verification.\n\n### Recommended secure configuration\n\nYou can enable RFC 7519\u2013compliant audience validation using the new `verification.aud` option:\n\n```ts\nimport { Hono } from \u0027hono\u0027\nimport { jwt } from \u0027hono/jwt\u0027\n\nconst app = new Hono()\n\napp.use(\n \u0027/api/*\u0027,\n jwt({\n secret: \u0027my-secret\u0027,\n verification: {\n // Require this API to only accept tokens with aud = \u0027service-a\u0027\n aud: \u0027service-a\u0027,\n },\n })\n)\n```\n\nBelow is the original description by the reporter. For security reasons, it does not include PoC reproduction steps, as the vulnerability can be clearly understood from the technical description.\n\n---\n\n## The original description by the reporter\n\n### Summary\nHono\u2019s **JWT Auth Middleware does not provide a built-in `aud` (Audience) verification option**, which can cause **confused-deputy / token-mix-up** issues: an API may accept a valid token that was **issued for a different audience** (e.g., another service) when multiple services share the same issuer/keys. This can lead to unintended cross-service access. Hono\u2019s docs list verification options for `iss/nbf/iat/exp` only, with **no `aud` support**; RFC 7519 requires that when an `aud` claim is present, tokens **MUST** be rejected unless the processing party identifies itself in that claim.\n\n**Note:** This problem likely exists in the **JWK/JWKS-based middleware** as well (e.g., `jwk` / `verifyWithJwks`)\n\n### Details\n- The middleware\u2019s `verifyOptions` enumerate only `iss`, `nbf`, `iat`, and `exp`; there is **no `aud` option**. The same omission appears in the JWT Helper\u2019s \u201cPayload Validation\u201d list. Developers relying on the middleware for complete standards-aligned validation therefore won\u2019t check audience by default.\n- **Standards requirement:** RFC 7519 \u00a74.1.3 states that each principal intended to process the JWT **MUST** identify itself with a value in the `aud` claim; if it does not, the JWT **MUST** be rejected (when `aud` is present). Lack of a first-class `aud` check increases the risk that tokens issued for **Service B** are accepted by **Service A**.\n- **Real-world effect:** In deployments with a single IdP/JWKS and shared keys across multiple services, a token minted for one audience can be mistakenly accepted by another audience unless developers implement a custom audience check.\n - For example, with Google Identity (OIDC), iss is always https://accounts.google.com (shared across apps), but aud differs per application because it is that app\u2019s OAuth client ID; therefore, an attacker can host a separate service that supports \u201cSign in with Google,\u201d obtain a valid ID token (JWT) for the victim user, and\u2014if your API does not verify aud\u2014use that token to access your API with the victim\u2019s privileges.\n\n### Impact\n**Type:** Authentication/authorization weakness via **token mix-up (confused-deputy)**.\n\n**Who is impacted:** Any Hono user who:\n- shares an issuer/keys across multiple services (common with a single IdP/JWKS)\n- distinguishes tokens by intended recipient using `aud`.\n\n**What can happen:**\n- **Cross-service access:** A token for *Service B* may be accepted by *Service A*.\n- **Boundary erosion:** ID tokens and access tokens, or separate API audiences, can be inadvertently intermixed.\n - This may causes unauthorized invocation of sensitive endpoints.\n\n**Recommended remediation:**\n1) Add `verifyOptions.aud` (`string | string[] | RegExp`) to the middleware and enforce RFC 7519 semantics: In [verify method](https://github.com/honojs/hono/blob/db764c2f1d8a2905d66c78c41aa47e47d3a4165d/src/utils/jwt/jwt.ts#L99-L156), if `aud` is present and does not match with specified audiences, reject.\n2) Ensure equivalent `aud` handling exists in the JWK/JWKS flow (`jwk` middleware / `verifyWithJwks`) so users of external IdPs can enforce audience consistently.",
"id": "GHSA-m732-5p4w-x69g",
"modified": "2025-10-23T17:38:34Z",
"published": "2025-10-22T15:21:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/security/advisories/GHSA-m732-5p4w-x69g"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62610"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/commit/45ba3bf9e3dff8e4bd85d6b47d4b71c8d6c66bef"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Hono Improper Authorization vulnerability"
}
GHSA-M83F-269M-J6X3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-19 00:31 – Updated: 2025-12-19 00:31Improper authorization in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-65041"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-18T22:16:01Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper authorization in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-m83f-269m-j6x3",
"modified": "2025-12-19T00:31:42Z",
"published": "2025-12-19T00:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-65041"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-65041"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M84G-JVJ9-9QG6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-29 00:31 – Updated: 2026-06-29 00:31A vulnerability was identified in Databend up to 1.2.881 on HTTP. This affects the function ClientSessionManager::state_key of the file src/query/service/src/servers/http/v1/session/client_session_manager.rs of the component Tenant Handler. The manipulation leads to authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-13512"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-28T23:16:48Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was identified in Databend up to 1.2.881 on HTTP. This affects the function ClientSessionManager::state_key of the file src/query/service/src/servers/http/v1/session/client_session_manager.rs of the component Tenant Handler. The manipulation leads to authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.",
"id": "GHSA-m84g-jvj9-9qg6",
"modified": "2026-06-29T00:31:40Z",
"published": "2026-06-29T00:31:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13512"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/databendlabs/databend/issues/19930"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/databendlabs/databend/pull/19931"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-13512"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/838874"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/374520"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/374520/cti"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
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.