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-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"
}
GHSA-Q79H-QRW2-XQRF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-12 21:31 – Updated: 2026-05-12 21:31Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.9-beta1, 2.4.8-p4, 2.4.7-p9, 2.4.6-p14, 2.4.5-p16, 2.4.4-p17 and earlier are affected by an Improper Authorization vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized write access. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must visit a maliciously crafted URL or interact with a compromised web page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34656"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-12T20:16:36Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.9-beta1, 2.4.8-p4, 2.4.7-p9, 2.4.6-p14, 2.4.5-p16, 2.4.4-p17 and earlier are affected by an Improper Authorization vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized write access. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must visit a maliciously crafted URL or interact with a compromised web page.",
"id": "GHSA-q79h-qrw2-xqrf",
"modified": "2026-05-12T21:31:34Z",
"published": "2026-05-12T21:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34656"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb26-49.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q7G5-JQ6P-6WVX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-07 16:37 – Updated: 2025-05-07 15:03Impact
Starting with 6.1, HTTP Inputs can be configured to check if a specified header is present and has a specified value to authenticate HTTP-based ingestion. Unfortunately, even though in cases of a missing header or a wrong value the correct HTTP response (401) is returned, the message will be ingested nonetheless.
Patches
Workarounds
Disabling http-based inputs and allow only authenticated pull-based inputs.
Analysis provided by Fabian Yamaguchi - Whirly Labs (Pty) Ltd
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.graylog2:graylog2-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "6.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.1.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30373"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-07T16:37:52Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-07T15:15:43Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nStarting with 6.1, HTTP Inputs can be configured to check if a specified header is present and has a specified value to authenticate HTTP-based ingestion. Unfortunately, even though in cases of a missing header or a wrong value the correct HTTP response (401) is returned, the message will be ingested nonetheless.\n\n### Patches\n\n### Workarounds\nDisabling http-based inputs and allow only authenticated pull-based inputs.\n\nAnalysis provided by Fabian Yamaguchi - Whirly Labs (Pty) Ltd",
"id": "GHSA-q7g5-jq6p-6wvx",
"modified": "2025-05-07T15:03:32Z",
"published": "2025-04-07T16:37:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Graylog2/graylog2-server/security/advisories/GHSA-q7g5-jq6p-6wvx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Graylog2/graylog2-server/commit/31bc13d3cd6f550ec83473d0f8666cd3ebf50f10"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Graylog2/graylog2-server"
}
],
"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": "Graylog\u0027s Authenticated HTTP inputs ingest message even if Authorization header is missing or has wrong value"
}
GHSA-Q87V-2F9C-89C7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-15 15:30 – Updated: 2023-12-15 15:30In JetBrains YouTrack before 2023.3.22268 authorization check for inline comments inside thread replies was missed
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-50871"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-15T14:15:15Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In JetBrains YouTrack before 2023.3.22268 authorization check for inline comments inside thread replies was missed",
"id": "GHSA-q87v-2f9c-89c7",
"modified": "2023-12-15T15:30:28Z",
"published": "2023-12-15T15:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-50871"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jetbrains.com/privacy-security/issues-fixed"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q8W5-C2M8-WXRX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-17 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-07 03:30In affected versions of Octopus Server it was possible for a low privileged user to manipulate an API request to change the signing key expiration and revocation time frames via an API endpoint that had incorrect permission validation. It was not possible to expose the signing keys using this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3237"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-17T07:16:03Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "In affected versions of Octopus Server it was possible for a low privileged user to manipulate an API request to change the signing key expiration and revocation time frames via an API endpoint that had incorrect permission validation. It was not possible to expose the signing keys using this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-q8w5-c2m8-wxrx",
"modified": "2026-04-07T03:30:24Z",
"published": "2026-03-17T09:31:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3237"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisories.octopus.com/post/2026/sa2026-03"
}
],
"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:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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-Q8W9-QJMV-6M86
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:56 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:58In WebAccess, versions 8.4.1 and prior, an improper authorization vulnerability may allow an attacker to disclose sensitive information, cause improper control of generation of code, which may allow remote code execution or cause a system crash.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-13550"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-09-18T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In WebAccess, versions 8.4.1 and prior, an improper authorization vulnerability may allow an attacker to disclose sensitive information, cause improper control of generation of code, which may allow remote code execution or cause a system crash.",
"id": "GHSA-q8w9-qjmv-6m86",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:58:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:56:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-13550"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-19-260-01"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q926-C743-49QJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 20:44 – Updated: 2026-03-27 21:17Summary
Centrifugo supports a configuration flag insecure_skip_token_signature_verify that completely disables JWT signature verification. When enabled, Centrifugo accepts any JWT token regardless of signature validity — including tokens signed with wrong keys, random signatures, or no signature at all. Critically, no warning is logged at startup or runtime when this flag is active, making it invisible to operators and security auditors.
Note: This vulnerability requires the operator to have explicitly set insecure_skip_token_signature_verify=true. The core issue is the absence of any warning when this flag is active, making accidental production exposure undetectable.
Details
The flag is defined in internal/configtypes/types.go:
InsecureSkipTokenSignatureVerify bool `mapstructure:"insecure_skip_token_signature_verify"`
It is passed directly to token verification in internal/client/handler.go:
token, err := h.tokenVerifier.VerifyConnectToken(e.Token,
cfg.Client.InsecureSkipTokenSignatureVerify)
In token_verifier_jwt.go, when skipVerify=true the entire signature block is bypassed:
if !skipVerify {
// This block never executes
err = verifier.verifySignature(token)
}
The flag is configurable via multiple vectors making accidental exposure likely:
- Config file: insecure_skip_token_signature_verify: true
- Environment variable: CENTRIFUGO_INSECURE_SKIP_TOKEN_SIGNATURE_VERIFY=true
- YAML, TOML config formats
Despite hmac_secret_key being configured, startup logs show "enabled JWT verifiers" — falsely implying verification is active.
PoC
Config with legitimate HMAC key but skip flag enabled:
{
"client": {
"insecure_skip_token_signature_verify": true,
"token": { "hmac_secret_key": "legitimate-production-secret-key" }
}
}
Token signed with completely wrong key is fully accepted:
VULNERABILITY CONFIRMED!
Connected as user: {'client': '899dec73...', 'version': '0.0.0 OSS'}
No security warning emitted when insecure_skip_token_signature_verify=true:
Token signed with wrong key accepted, authentication bypass confirmed:
skipVerify flag propagated from config to all token verification calls:
Impact
- Any unauthenticated user can connect as any arbitrary user ID
- Complete authentication bypass — attacker sets any
subclaim value - No indicators in logs that the server is operating insecurely
- Easily triggered accidentally via environment variable injection in containerized deployments (e.g. misconfigured Kubernetes secrets)
- Affects all connection types: WebSocket, HTTP-streaming, SSE, GRPC
Suggested Fix
- Emit a loud startup warning when flag is enabled:
if cfg.Client.InsecureSkipTokenSignatureVerify {
log.Warn().Msg("SECURITY WARNING: JWT signature verification is " +
"DISABLED via insecure_skip_token_signature_verify - " +
"DO NOT use in production!")
}
- Consider requiring an additional explicit
insecure_mode: trueflag to prevent accidental single-flag misconfiguration - Log a warning on every accepted token when skip is active
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 6.6.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v6"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.7.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "3.2.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v4"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "4.1.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v5"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "5.4.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-13T20:44:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\nCentrifugo supports a configuration flag `insecure_skip_token_signature_verify` that completely disables JWT signature verification. When enabled, Centrifugo accepts any JWT token regardless of signature validity \u2014 including tokens signed with wrong keys, random signatures, or no signature at all. Critically, no warning is logged at startup or runtime when this flag is active, making it invisible to operators and security auditors.\n\nNote: This vulnerability requires the operator to have explicitly set insecure_skip_token_signature_verify=true. The core issue is the absence of any warning when this flag is active, making accidental production exposure undetectable.\n\n### Details\nThe flag is defined in `internal/configtypes/types.go`:\n```\nInsecureSkipTokenSignatureVerify bool `mapstructure:\"insecure_skip_token_signature_verify\"`\n```\n\nIt is passed directly to token verification in `internal/client/handler.go`:\n```\ntoken, err := h.tokenVerifier.VerifyConnectToken(e.Token, \n cfg.Client.InsecureSkipTokenSignatureVerify)\n```\n\nIn `token_verifier_jwt.go`, when `skipVerify=true` the entire signature block is bypassed:\n```go\nif !skipVerify {\n // This block never executes\n err = verifier.verifySignature(token)\n}\n```\nThe flag is configurable via multiple vectors making accidental exposure likely:\n- Config file: `insecure_skip_token_signature_verify: true`\n- Environment variable: `CENTRIFUGO_INSECURE_SKIP_TOKEN_SIGNATURE_VERIFY=true`\n- YAML, TOML config formats\n\nDespite `hmac_secret_key` being configured, startup logs show `\"enabled JWT verifiers\"` \u2014 falsely implying verification is active.\n\n### PoC\nConfig with legitimate HMAC key but skip flag enabled:\n```json\n{\n \"client\": {\n \"insecure_skip_token_signature_verify\": true,\n \"token\": { \"hmac_secret_key\": \"legitimate-production-secret-key\" }\n }\n}\n```\n\nToken signed with completely wrong key is fully accepted:\n```\nVULNERABILITY CONFIRMED!\nConnected as user: {\u0027client\u0027: \u0027899dec73...\u0027, \u0027version\u0027: \u00270.0.0 OSS\u0027}\n```\n\nNo security warning emitted when insecure_skip_token_signature_verify=true:\n\n\nToken signed with wrong key accepted, authentication bypass confirmed:\n\n\nskipVerify flag propagated from config to all token verification calls:\n\n\n### Impact\n- Any unauthenticated user can connect as any arbitrary user ID\n- Complete authentication bypass \u2014 attacker sets any `sub` claim value\n- No indicators in logs that the server is operating insecurely\n- Easily triggered accidentally via environment variable injection\n in containerized deployments (e.g. misconfigured Kubernetes secrets)\n- Affects all connection types: WebSocket, HTTP-streaming, SSE, GRPC\n \n### Suggested Fix\n1. Emit a loud startup warning when flag is enabled:\n```go\nif cfg.Client.InsecureSkipTokenSignatureVerify {\n log.Warn().Msg(\"SECURITY WARNING: JWT signature verification is \" +\n \"DISABLED via insecure_skip_token_signature_verify - \" + \n \"DO NOT use in production!\")\n}\n```\n2. Consider requiring an additional explicit `insecure_mode: true` flag to prevent accidental single-flag misconfiguration\n3. Log a warning on every accepted token when skip is active",
"id": "GHSA-q926-c743-49qj",
"modified": "2026-03-27T21:17:00Z",
"published": "2026-03-13T20:44:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/security/advisories/GHSA-q926-c743-49qj"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/commit/dab80fe3adfe0bbeca3bb3ea45e6d95df9f601a8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/releases/tag/v6.7.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4703"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Centrifugo\u0027s InsecureSkipTokenSignatureVerify flag silently disables JWT verification with no warning"
}
GHSA-Q9M4-4HMF-3HGP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-10 15:30 – Updated: 2024-01-10 15:30The vulnerability allows an authenticated remote attacker to perform actions exceeding their authorized access via crafted HTTP requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-48252"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-10T13:15:45Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The vulnerability allows an authenticated remote attacker to perform actions exceeding their authorized access via crafted HTTP requests.",
"id": "GHSA-q9m4-4hmf-3hgp",
"modified": "2024-01-10T15:30:19Z",
"published": "2024-01-10T15:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-48252"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://psirt.bosch.com/security-advisories/BOSCH-SA-711465.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-Q9XX-4689-GVV5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:06 – Updated: 2024-01-10 20:24Magento versions 2.4.2 (and earlier), 2.4.1-p1 (and earlier) and 2.3.6-p1 (and earlier) are affected by an Improper Authorization vulnerability via the 'Create Customer' endpoint. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized modification of customer data by an unauthenticated attacker. Access to the admin console is required for successful exploitation.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.2-p1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28563"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-10T20:24:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-28T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Magento versions 2.4.2 (and earlier), 2.4.1-p1 (and earlier) and 2.3.6-p1 (and earlier) are affected by an Improper Authorization vulnerability via the \u0027Create Customer\u0027 endpoint. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized modification of customer data by an unauthenticated attacker. Access to the admin console is required for successful exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-q9xx-4689-gvv5",
"modified": "2024-01-10T20:24:45Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:06:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28563"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2/commit/1bd5cb8c065e44779526c0b044ce19b884707695"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2/commit/ed952726c94e401e922e88490e41a536f2d850e7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb21-30.html"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Magento Unauthorized access to restricted resources"
}
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.