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.
2303 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-Q53V-392R-55MW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-25 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-29 20:06A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in macOS Monterey 12.5, macOS Big Sur 11.6.8, Security Update 2022-005 Catalina, iOS 15.6 and iPadOS 15.6. An app may be able to read arbitrary files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-32838"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-24T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in macOS Monterey 12.5, macOS Big Sur 11.6.8, Security Update 2022-005 Catalina, iOS 15.6 and iPadOS 15.6. An app may be able to read arbitrary files.",
"id": "GHSA-q53v-392r-55mw",
"modified": "2022-08-29T20:06:49Z",
"published": "2022-08-25T00:00:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-32838"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213343"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213344"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213345"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213346"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q5P3-6VWG-RF7J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-07 15:38 – Updated: 2026-05-09 00:31The Optoma CinemaX P2 projector (firmware TVOS-04.24.010.04.01, Android 8.0.0) exposes Android Debug Bridge (ADB) on TCP port 5555 over the network without requiring authentication. The device is configured with ro.adb.secure=0, which disables RSA key verification. Additionally, a functional su binary exists at /system/xbin/su that grants root privileges without authentication. An attacker on the same network can connect to the device via ADB, obtain a shell, and escalate to root privileges, gaining complete control of the device. This allows extraction of stored WiFi credentials, installation of persistent malware, and access to all device data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30495"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-07T14:16:01Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Optoma CinemaX P2 projector (firmware TVOS-04.24.010.04.01, Android 8.0.0) exposes Android Debug Bridge (ADB) on TCP port 5555 over the network without requiring authentication. The device is configured with ro.adb.secure=0, which disables RSA key verification. Additionally, a functional su binary exists at /system/xbin/su that grants root privileges without authentication. An attacker on the same network can connect to the device via ADB, obtain a shell, and escalate to root privileges, gaining complete control of the device. This allows extraction of stored WiFi credentials, installation of persistent malware, and access to all device data.",
"id": "GHSA-q5p3-6vwg-rf7j",
"modified": "2026-05-09T00:31:52Z",
"published": "2026-05-07T15:38:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30495"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://whitelabel.org/security/2026-02-01-smart-projector"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q5VH-6WHW-X745
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-08-13 20:16 – Updated: 2024-10-07 16:44Impact
Starting with OneFuzz 2.12.0 or greater, an incomplete authorization check allows an authenticated user from any Azure Active Directory tenant to make authorized API calls to a vulnerable OneFuzz instance.
To be vulnerable, a OneFuzz deployment must be:
* Version 2.12.0 or greater
* Deployed with the non-default --multi_tenant_domain option
This can result in read/write access to private data such as: * Software vulnerability and crash information * Security testing tools * Proprietary code and symbols
Via authorized API calls, this also enables tampering with existing data and unauthorized code execution on Azure compute resources.
Patches
This issue is resolved starting in release 2.31.0, via the addition of application-level check of the bearer token's issuer against an administrator-configured allowlist.
Workarounds
Users can restrict access to the tenant of a deployed OneFuzz instance < 2.31.0 by redeploying in the default configuration, which omits the --multi_tenant_domain option.
References
You can find an overview of the Microsoft Identity Platform here. This vulnerability applies to the multi-tenant application pattern, as described here.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in OneFuzz * Email us at fuzzing@microsoft.com
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "onefuzz"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.12.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.31.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-37705"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-346",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-08-13T20:16:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-13T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Impact\n\nStarting with OneFuzz 2.12.0 or greater, an incomplete authorization check allows an authenticated user from any Azure Active Directory tenant to make authorized API calls to a vulnerable OneFuzz instance.\n\nTo be vulnerable, a OneFuzz deployment must be:\n* Version 2.12.0 or greater\n* Deployed with the non-default [`--multi_tenant_domain`](https://github.com/microsoft/onefuzz/blob/2.30.0/src/deployment/deploy.py#L1021) option\n\nThis can result in read/write access to private data such as:\n* Software vulnerability and crash information\n* Security testing tools\n* Proprietary code and symbols\n\nVia authorized API calls, this also enables tampering with existing data and unauthorized code execution on Azure compute resources.\n\n## Patches\n\nThis issue is resolved starting in release 2.31.0, via the addition of application-level check of the bearer token\u0027s `issuer` against an administrator-configured allowlist.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nUsers can restrict access to the tenant of a deployed OneFuzz instance \u003c 2.31.0 by redeploying in the default configuration, which omits the `--multi_tenant_domain` option.\n\n## References\n\nYou can find an overview of the Microsoft Identity Platform [here](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/v2-overview). This vulnerability applies to the multi-tenant application pattern, as described [here](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/howto-convert-app-to-be-multi-tenant).\n\n## For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [OneFuzz](https://github.com/microsoft/onefuzz)\n* Email us at [fuzzing@microsoft.com](mailto:fuzzing@microsoft.com)",
"id": "GHSA-q5vh-6whw-x745",
"modified": "2024-10-07T16:44:37Z",
"published": "2021-08-13T20:16:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/microsoft/onefuzz/security/advisories/GHSA-q5vh-6whw-x745"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-37705"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/microsoft/onefuzz/pull/1153"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/microsoft/onefuzz/commit/2fcb4998887959b4fa11894a068d689189742cb1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/microsoft/onefuzz"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/microsoft/onefuzz/releases/tag/2.31.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/onefuzz/PYSEC-2021-344.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pypi.org/project/onefuzz"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Improper Authorization and Origin Validation Error in OneFuzz"
}
GHSA-Q5XQ-RVPH-WWGR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 00:31 – Updated: 2026-04-03 00:31Improper authorization in Microsoft Azure Kubernetes Service allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33105"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-03T00:16:05Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper authorization in Microsoft Azure Kubernetes Service allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-q5xq-rvph-wwgr",
"modified": "2026-04-03T00:31:09Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T00:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33105"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33105"
}
],
"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-Q6HV-WCJR-WP8H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-26 15:00 – Updated: 2025-10-23 20:15Impact
Because UPDATE validation is not being applied, it is possible for an actor with access to an instance of the initializingworkspaces virtual workspace to run arbitrary patches on the status field of LogicalCluster objects while the workspace is initializing.
This allows to add or remove any initializers as well as changing the phase of a LogicalCluster (to "Ready" for example).
As this effectively allows to skip certain initializers or the entire initialization phase, potential integrations with external systems such as billing or security could be affected. Their initializers could be skipped by a WorkspaceType that adds another initializer and grants permissions to the virtual workspace to a rogue or compromised entity.
Who is impacted?
- Impacts other owners of
WorkspaceTypeswith initializers that are inherited by otherWorkspaceTypes. - Impacts developers using the
virtual/frameworkpackage to create their own virtualworkspaces if they are using UpdateFuncs in their custom storageWrappers.
Details
The issue occurs because the rest.ValidateObjectUpdateFunc is not being called within the DefaultDynamicDelegatedStoreFuncs. As a result, the intended status overwrite protection from initializers never gets called, allowing arbitrary logicalcluster status patches.
Patches
The problem has been patched in #3599 and is available in kcp 0.28.3 and higher.
Workarounds
- Further limit access to the
initializeverb onWorkspaceTypeobjects (see documentation for details). - Only use trusted
WorkspaceTypeobjects.
References
See the pull request (#3599).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.28.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kcp-dev/kcp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.28.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-26T15:00:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nBecause UPDATE validation is not being applied, it is possible for an actor with access to an instance of the [initializingworkspaces virtual workspace](https://docs.kcp.io/kcp/latest/concepts/workspaces/workspace-initialization/) to run arbitrary patches on the status field of `LogicalCluster` objects while the workspace is initializing.\n\nThis allows to add or remove any initializers as well as changing the phase of a `LogicalCluster` (to \"Ready\" for example).\n\nAs this effectively allows to skip certain initializers or the entire initialization phase, potential integrations with external systems such as billing or security could be affected. Their initializers could be skipped by a `WorkspaceType` that adds another initializer and grants permissions to the virtual workspace to a rogue or compromised entity.\n\n_Who is impacted?_\n\n* Impacts other owners of `WorkspaceTypes` with initializers that are inherited by other `WorkspaceTypes`.\n* Impacts developers using the `virtual/framework` package to create their own virtualworkspaces if they are using UpdateFuncs in their custom storageWrappers.\n\n### Details\n\nThe issue occurs because the [rest.ValidateObjectUpdateFunc](https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/blob/cli/v0.28.1/pkg/virtual/framework/forwardingregistry/store.go#L174) is not being called within the DefaultDynamicDelegatedStoreFuncs. As a result, the intended status overwrite protection from initializers never gets called, allowing arbitrary logicalcluster status patches.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe problem has been patched in #3599 and is available in kcp 0.28.3 and higher.\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- Further limit access to the `initialize` verb on `WorkspaceType` objects (see [documentation](https://docs.kcp.io/kcp/v0.28/concepts/workspaces/workspace-initialization/#enforcing-permissions-for-initializers) for details).\n- Only use trusted `WorkspaceType` objects.\n\n### References\n\nSee the pull request (#3599).",
"id": "GHSA-q6hv-wcjr-wp8h",
"modified": "2025-10-23T20:15:01Z",
"published": "2025-09-26T15:00:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/security/advisories/GHSA-q6hv-wcjr-wp8h"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/pull/3599"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/commit/02134a2a51d33652ab288cccd7a13539b59c7584"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kcp-dev/kcp/releases/tag/v0.28.3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3985"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "kcp is missing update validation allows arbitrary LogicalCluster status patches through initializingworkspaces Virtual Workspace"
}
GHSA-Q6MF-WWWR-3HG2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:52 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:28cPanel before 11.54.0.4 allows arbitrary file-overwrite operations in scripts/quotacheck (SEC-81).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-10848"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-01T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "cPanel before 11.54.0.4 allows arbitrary file-overwrite operations in scripts/quotacheck (SEC-81).",
"id": "GHSA-q6mf-wwwr-3hg2",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:28:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:52:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10848"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://documentation.cpanel.net/display/CL/54+Change+Log"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://news.cpanel.com/cpanel-tsr-2016-0001-full-disclosure"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q6MV-M62H-7Q28
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:52 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:35A vulnerability in the web management interface of Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to upload arbitrary files. The vulnerability is due to incomplete authorization checks in the web management interface. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a malicious request to certain parts of the web management interface. Depending on the configuration of the affected switch, the malicious request must be sent via HTTP or HTTPS. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify the configuration of an affected device or to inject a reverse shell. This vulnerability affects Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches running firmware versions prior to 1.1.4.4 with the web management interface enabled. The web management interface is enabled via both HTTP and HTTPS by default.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1912"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-07T06:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the web management interface of Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to upload arbitrary files. The vulnerability is due to incomplete authorization checks in the web management interface. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a malicious request to certain parts of the web management interface. Depending on the configuration of the affected switch, the malicious request must be sent via HTTP or HTTPS. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify the configuration of an affected device or to inject a reverse shell. This vulnerability affects Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches running firmware versions prior to 1.1.4.4 with the web management interface enabled. The web management interface is enabled via both HTTP and HTTPS by default.",
"id": "GHSA-q6mv-m62h-7q28",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:35:09Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:52:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1912"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190806-sb220-auth_bypass"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/154667/Realtek-Managed-Switch-Controller-RTL83xx-Stack-Overflow.html"
}
],
"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-Q6WC-XX4M-92FJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-07 02:23 – Updated: 2026-03-23 17:29Impact
In version 1.20.0, when using new sync streams with config.edition: 3, certain subquery filters were ignored when determining which data to sync to users.
Depending on the sync stream configuration, this could result in authenticated users syncing data that should have been restricted.
Only queries that gate synchronization using subqueries without partitioning the result set are affected.
Not affected:
* Sync rules (bucket_definitions)
* Sync streams using config.edition: 2
* No data is exposed without authenticating
Patches
The issue is fixed in 1.20.1. Restarting the service with the new version is sufficient - no reprocessing of sync streams is required.
Any data that users erroneously synced will be automatically removed from those devices when they connect again.
We have updated all affected PowerSync Cloud instances to the fixed version, and are reaching out to affected customers.
For self-hosted PowerSync instances, update to the latest version and restart.
Affected queries
Subqueries used only to determine whether or not a table should be synced (without partitioning the data itself) are affected. Examples:
-- Goal: Sync a table only to admin users
-- 1.20.0: all authenticated users would sync this table
SELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE auth.user_id() IN (SELECT user_id FROM admins)
SELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE 1 IN (SELECT 1 FROM users WHERE id = auth.user_id() AND is_admin = TRUE)
-- Goal: Sync a table only if authorized
-- 1.20.0: all authenticated users would sync this table
SELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE 'sensitive_table' IN (SELECT table_name FROM synced_table WHERE "user" = auth.user_id())
SELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE 'sensitive_table' IN auth.parameter('allowed_tables')
Queries that partition data (for example SELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE owner IN (SELECT id FROM users WHERE is_admin AND id = auth.user_id())) are not affected by this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@powersync/service-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.20.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.20.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"1.20.0"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@powersync/service-sync-rules"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.32.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.33.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"0.32.0"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30870"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-07T02:23:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-10T17:40:14Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nIn version **1.20.0**, when using new sync streams with `config.edition: 3`, certain subquery filters were ignored when determining which data to sync to users.\n\nDepending on the sync stream configuration, this could result in authenticated users syncing data that should have been restricted.\n\nOnly queries that gate synchronization using subqueries without partitioning the result set are affected.\n\nNot affected:\n * Sync rules (bucket_definitions)\n * Sync streams using `config.edition: 2`\n * No data is exposed without authenticating\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue is **fixed in 1.20.1**. Restarting the service with the new version is sufficient - no reprocessing of sync streams is required.\n\nAny data that users erroneously synced will be automatically removed from those devices when they connect again.\n\nWe have updated all affected PowerSync Cloud instances to the fixed version, and are reaching out to affected customers.\n\nFor self-hosted PowerSync instances, update to the latest version and restart.\n\n### Affected queries\n\nSubqueries used only to determine whether or not a table should be synced (without partitioning the data itself) are affected. Examples:\n\n```sql\n-- Goal: Sync a table only to admin users\n-- 1.20.0: all authenticated users would sync this table\nSELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE auth.user_id() IN (SELECT user_id FROM admins)\nSELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE 1 IN (SELECT 1 FROM users WHERE id = auth.user_id() AND is_admin = TRUE)\n\n-- Goal: Sync a table only if authorized\n-- 1.20.0: all authenticated users would sync this table\nSELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE \u0027sensitive_table\u0027 IN (SELECT table_name FROM synced_table WHERE \"user\" = auth.user_id())\nSELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE \u0027sensitive_table\u0027 IN auth.parameter(\u0027allowed_tables\u0027)\n```\n\nQueries that partition data (for example `SELECT * FROM sensitive_table WHERE owner IN (SELECT id FROM users WHERE is_admin AND id = auth.user_id())`) are not affected by this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-q6wc-xx4m-92fj",
"modified": "2026-03-23T17:29:15Z",
"published": "2026-03-07T02:23:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/powersync-ja/powersync-service/security/advisories/GHSA-q6wc-xx4m-92fj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30870"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/powersync-ja/powersync-service"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "PowerSync: Some sync filters ignored on 1.20.0 using `config.edition: 3`"
}
GHSA-Q76Q-Q8HW-HMPW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-09 19:47 – Updated: 2024-11-19 20:36Impact
Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when reading job execution logs through the P2P preheat execution logs - API call
GET /projects/{project_name}/preheat/policies/{preheat_policy_name}/executions/{execution_id}/tasks/{task_id}/logs
By sending a request that attempts to read P2P preheat execution logs and specifying different job ids, malicious authenticatedusers could read all the job logs stored in the Harbor database.
Patches
This and similar issues are fixed in Harbor v2.5.2 and later. Please upgrade as soon as possible.
Workarounds
There are no workarounds available.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in the Harbor GitHub repository
Credits
Thanks to Gal Goldstein and Daniel Abeles from Oxeye Security for reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.10.12"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/goharbor/harbor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.10.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.4.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/goharbor/harbor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.5.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/goharbor/harbor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31671"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-09T19:47:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-14T12:15:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nHarbor fails to validate the user permissions when reading job execution logs through the P2P preheat execution logs - API call\n\n\u00a0 GET /projects/{project_name}/preheat/policies/{preheat_policy_name}/executions/{execution_id}/tasks/{task_id}/logs\n\nBy sending a request that attempts to read P2P preheat execution logs and specifying different job ids, malicious authenticatedusers could read all the job logs stored in the Harbor database.\n\n### Patches\nThis and similar issues are fixed in Harbor v2.5.2 and later. Please upgrade as soon as possible.\n\n### Workarounds\nThere are no workarounds available.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [the Harbor GitHub repository](https://github.com/goharbor/harbor)\n\n### Credits\nThanks to [Gal Goldstein](https://www.linkedin.com/in/gal-goldshtein/) and [Daniel Abeles](https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-abeles/) from [Oxeye Security](https://www.oxeye.io/) for reporting this issue.\n",
"id": "GHSA-q76q-q8hw-hmpw",
"modified": "2024-11-19T20:36:37Z",
"published": "2022-09-09T19:47:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/security/advisories/GHSA-3wpx-625q-22j7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/security/advisories/GHSA-q76q-q8hw-hmpw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31671"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/goharbor/harbor"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when reading job execution logs through the P2P preheat execution logs"
}
GHSA-Q79H-67VX-M9XG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-13 17:17 – Updated: 2026-07-13 17:17Description
A participant manager can access and modify the CSV census record admin forms.
Technical description
The CSV census admin record-management surface under /admin/csv_census/census_logs does not enforce admin-only authorization before rendering or mutating Decidim::Verifications::CsvDatum.
A participant manager (which can only manage participants) can therefore open the admin forms, create or update census rows, and delete rows directly.
Reproduction steps:
1. Sign in a participant admin and open http://localhost:3000/admin/csv_census/census_logs/new_record in the browser. Confirm the create form loads even though the session is not a full admin.
Note that normal participant accounts were not able to access the CSV census records which is good.
Impact
Any participant admin can create, alter, or remove CSV census rows, which can corrupt verification data relied on by authorization workflows.
Patches
See https://github.com/decidim/decidim/pull/16674 and https://github.com/decidim/decidim/pull/16703
Workarounds
Disable Organization Census verification method
Reference
OWASP A01:2021 Broken Access Control
Credits
This issue was discovered in a security audit organized by the Decidim Association and made by Radically Open Security against Decidim financed by NGI.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "decidim-verifications"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.30.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "decidim-verifications"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.31.0.rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "0.31.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "decidim-verifications"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.32.0.rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "0.32.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45415"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-13T17:17:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Description\n\nA participant manager can access and modify the CSV census record admin forms.\n\n## Technical description\n\nThe CSV census admin record-management surface under `/admin/csv_census/census_logs` does not enforce admin-only authorization before rendering or mutating `Decidim::Verifications::CsvDatum`.\n\nA participant manager (which can only manage participants) can therefore open the admin forms, create or update census rows, and delete rows directly.\n\nReproduction steps:\n1. Sign in a participant admin and open `http://localhost:3000/admin/csv_census/census_logs/new_record` in the browser. Confirm the create form loads even though the session is not a full admin.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1541\" height=\"274\" alt=\"decidim-census-01\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/859ee101-746f-4acb-8051-27036689f1b3\" /\u003e\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1538\" height=\"363\" alt=\"decidim-census-02\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/85bbb004-a999-46dc-856c-fd32b50ced2c\" /\u003e\n\nNote that normal participant accounts were not able to access the CSV census records which is good.\n\n### Impact\n \nAny participant admin can create, alter, or remove CSV census rows, which can corrupt verification data relied on by authorization workflows.\n\n### Patches\n\nSee https://github.com/decidim/decidim/pull/16674 and https://github.com/decidim/decidim/pull/16703 \n\n### Workarounds\n\nDisable Organization Census verification method\n\n### Reference\n\nOWASP A01:2021 Broken Access Control\n\n### Credits\n\nThis issue was discovered in a security audit organized by the [Decidim Association](https://decidim.org) and made by [Radically Open Security](https://www.radicallyopensecurity.com/) against Decidim financed by [NGI](https://ngi.eu/).",
"id": "GHSA-q79h-67vx-m9xg",
"modified": "2026-07-13T17:17:33Z",
"published": "2026-07-13T17:17:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/decidim/decidim/security/advisories/GHSA-q79h-67vx-m9xg"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/decidim/decidim/pull/16674"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/decidim/decidim/pull/16703"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/decidim/decidim"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Decidim: CSV census record endpoints improper authorization"
}
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.