CWE-602
Allowed-with-ReviewClient-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.
232 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-P47R-GPQQ-3W72
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-10 18:31 – Updated: 2023-12-21 03:30A client-side enforcement of server-side security [CWE-602] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager version 7.4.0 and before 7.2.3 and FortiAnalyzer version 7.4.0 and before 7.2.3 may allow a remote attacker with low privileges to access a privileged web console via client side code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-42787"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-10T17:15:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A client-side enforcement of server-side security [CWE-602] vulnerability\u00a0in Fortinet FortiManager version 7.4.0 and before 7.2.3 and FortiAnalyzer version 7.4.0 and before 7.2.3 may allow a remote attacker with low privileges to access a privileged web console via client side code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-p47r-gpqq-3w72",
"modified": "2023-12-21T03:30:32Z",
"published": "2023-10-10T18:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/orangecertcc/security-research/security/advisories/GHSA-q5pq-8666-j8fr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-42787"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-187"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-P8F7-VF4M-X6J6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-17 09:31 – Updated: 2024-05-17 09:31Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security vulnerability in weForms allows Removing Important Client Functionality.This issue affects weForms: from n/a through 1.6.20.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-32512"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-17T09:15:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security vulnerability in weForms allows Removing Important Client Functionality.This issue affects weForms: from n/a through 1.6.20.",
"id": "GHSA-p8f7-vf4m-x6j6",
"modified": "2024-05-17T09:31:02Z",
"published": "2024-05-17T09:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-32512"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/weforms/wordpress-weforms-plugin-1-6-20-form-submission-restriction-bypass-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PMWX-37W8-6V99
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-31 21:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 21:30A Business Logic vulnerability exists in SourceCodester Loan Management System v1.0 due to improper server-side validation. The application allows administrators to create "Loan Plans" with specific interest rates. While the frontend interface prevents users from entering negative numbers, this constraint is not enforced on the backend. An authenticated attacker can bypass the client-side restriction by manipulating the HTTP POST request to submit a negative value for the interest_percentage. This results in the creation of loan plans with negative interest rates.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30521"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T19:16:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A Business Logic vulnerability exists in SourceCodester Loan Management System v1.0 due to improper server-side validation. The application allows administrators to create \"Loan Plans\" with specific interest rates. While the frontend interface prevents users from entering negative numbers, this constraint is not enforced on the backend. An authenticated attacker can bypass the client-side restriction by manipulating the HTTP POST request to submit a negative value for the interest_percentage. This results in the creation of loan plans with negative interest rates.",
"id": "GHSA-pmwx-37w8-6v99",
"modified": "2026-04-01T21:30:27Z",
"published": "2026-03-31T21:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30521"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/meifukun/Web-Security-PoCs/blob/main/Loan-Management-System/BusinessLogic-LoanPlan-NegativeInterest.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PV8J-6V7F-J6H8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 00:34 – Updated: 2026-07-01 15:35Insufficient policy enforcement in Bluetooth in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker to perform privilege escalation via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-13903"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-30T23:17:04Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient policy enforcement in Bluetooth in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker to perform privilege escalation via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)",
"id": "GHSA-pv8j-6v7f-j6h8",
"modified": "2026-07-01T15:35:02Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T00:34:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13903"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_0175352312.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/503912196"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PXG7-H6WR-852Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 12:30 – Updated: 2026-06-26 12:30Johnson & Johnson Audit Tracking Management System (ATMS) before 2026-04-21 allows viewing of meeting minutes and transcripts.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57913"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-26T11:16:31Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Johnson \u0026 Johnson Audit Tracking Management System (ATMS) before 2026-04-21 allows viewing of meeting minutes and transcripts.",
"id": "GHSA-pxg7-h6wr-852q",
"modified": "2026-06-26T12:30:30Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T12:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57913"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://eaton-works.com/2026/06/24/jnj-webapp-hacks"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q24W-FGF9-JWGV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 00:34 – Updated: 2026-07-01 18:31Insufficient policy enforcement in Network in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed an attacker in a privileged network position to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-13894"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-30T23:17:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Insufficient policy enforcement in Network in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed an attacker in a privileged network position to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)",
"id": "GHSA-q24w-fgf9-jwgv",
"modified": "2026-07-01T18:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T00:34:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13894"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_0175352312.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/501741117"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q2WR-7PW7-P6FG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 12:30 – Updated: 2026-06-26 12:30Johnson & Johnson Campus Recruiting before 2025-10-31 allows viewing of data provided by recruited students, and notes entered about students by interviewers.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57912"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-26T11:16:31Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Johnson \u0026 Johnson Campus Recruiting before 2025-10-31 allows viewing of data provided by recruited students, and notes entered about students by interviewers.",
"id": "GHSA-q2wr-7pw7-p6fg",
"modified": "2026-06-26T12:30:30Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T12:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57912"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://eaton-works.com/2026/06/24/jnj-webapp-hacks"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QCHF-893F-X2HX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-13 12:31 – Updated: 2025-05-13 12:31A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions < V2.16.5). The 'traceroute' tool in the web interface of affected devices is vulnerable to command injection due to missing server side input sanitation. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-33025"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-13T10:15:25Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions \u003c V2.16.5). The \u0027traceroute\u0027 tool in the web interface of affected devices is vulnerable to command injection due to missing server side input sanitation. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-qchf-893f-x2hx",
"modified": "2025-05-13T12:31:36Z",
"published": "2025-05-13T12:31:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-33025"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-301229.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-QM27-XFXW-QQMP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-02 12:00 – Updated: 2022-11-03 19:00Insufficient policy enforcement in developer tools in Google Chrome prior to 106.0.5249.62 allowed a remote attacker to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a crafted HTML page. (Chrome security severity: Medium)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3308"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-602"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-01T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient policy enforcement in developer tools in Google Chrome prior to 106.0.5249.62 allowed a remote attacker to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a crafted HTML page. (Chrome security severity: Medium)",
"id": "GHSA-qm27-xfxw-qqmp",
"modified": "2022-11-03T19:00:27Z",
"published": "2022-11-02T12:00:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3308"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2022/09/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_27.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://crbug.com/1342722"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QMG5-V42X-QQHQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-08 17:56 – Updated: 2025-12-09 19:19Summary
A CAPTCHA bypass vulnerability in the 1Panel authentication API allows an unauthenticated attacker to disable CAPTCHA verification by abusing a client-controlled parameter. Because the server previously trusted this value without proper validation, CAPTCHA protections could be bypassed, enabling automated login attempts and significantly increasing the risk of account takeover (ATO).
Details
The /api/login endpoint accepts a boolean field named ignoreCaptcha directly from the client request body:
"ignoreCaptcha": true
The backend implementation uses this value to determine whether CAPTCHA validation should be performed:
if !req.IgnoreCaptcha {
if errMsg := captcha.VerifyCode(req.CaptchaID, req.Captcha); errMsg != "" {
helper.BadAuth(c, errMsg, nil)
return
}
}
Because req.IgnoreCaptcha is taken directly from user input—with no server-side validation, no session binding, and no privilege checks—any unauthenticated attacker can force CAPTCHA validation to be skipped.
There are no additional conditions, such as:
no requirement for MFA
no trusted device
no IP reputation checks
no prior valid session
no rate limiting
This results in CAPTCHA being entirely client-controlled, which violates fundamental authentication and anti-automation security assumptions.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/1Panel-dev/1Panel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/1Panel-dev/1Panel/core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20251128030527-ac43f00273be"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-66507"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-290",
"CWE-602",
"CWE-807"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-12-08T17:56:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-09T16:18:19Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA CAPTCHA bypass vulnerability in the 1Panel authentication API allows an unauthenticated attacker to disable CAPTCHA verification by abusing a client-controlled parameter. Because the server previously trusted this value without proper validation, CAPTCHA protections could be bypassed, enabling automated login attempts and significantly increasing the risk of account takeover (ATO).\n\n### Details\n\nThe /api/login endpoint accepts a boolean field named ignoreCaptcha directly from the client request body:\n\n`\"ignoreCaptcha\": true`\n\n\nThe backend implementation uses this value to determine whether CAPTCHA validation should be performed:\n\n```\nif !req.IgnoreCaptcha {\n if errMsg := captcha.VerifyCode(req.CaptchaID, req.Captcha); errMsg != \"\" {\n helper.BadAuth(c, errMsg, nil)\n return\n }\n}\n\n```\n\nBecause req.IgnoreCaptcha is taken directly from user input\u2014with no server-side validation, no session binding, and no privilege checks\u2014any unauthenticated attacker can force CAPTCHA validation to be skipped.\n\nThere are no additional conditions, such as:\n\nno requirement for MFA\n\nno trusted device\n\nno IP reputation checks\n\nno prior valid session\n\nno rate limiting\n\nThis results in CAPTCHA being entirely client-controlled, which violates fundamental authentication and anti-automation security assumptions.",
"id": "GHSA-qmg5-v42x-qqhq",
"modified": "2025-12-09T19:19:10Z",
"published": "2025-12-08T17:56:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/1Panel-dev/1Panel/security/advisories/GHSA-qmg5-v42x-qqhq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-66507"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/1Panel-dev/1Panel/commit/ac43f00273be745f8d04b90b6e2b9c1a40ef7bca"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/1Panel-dev/1Panel"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/1Panel-dev/1Panel/releases/tag/v2.0.14"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "1Panel \u2013 CAPTCHA Bypass via Client-Controlled Flag "
}
Mitigation
- For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
Mitigation
If some degree of trust is required between the two entities, then use integrity checking and strong authentication to ensure that the inputs are coming from a trusted source. Design the product so that this trust is managed in a centralized fashion, especially if there are complex or numerous communication channels, in order to reduce the risks that the implementer will mistakenly omit a check in a single code path.
CAPEC-162: Manipulating Hidden Fields
An adversary exploits a weakness in the server's trust of client-side processing by modifying data on the client-side, such as price information, and then submitting this data to the server, which processes the modified data. For example, eShoplifting is a data manipulation attack against an on-line merchant during a purchasing transaction. The manipulation of price, discount or quantity fields in the transaction message allows the adversary to acquire items at a lower cost than the merchant intended. The adversary performs a normal purchasing transaction but edits hidden fields within the HTML form response that store price or other information to give themselves a better deal. The merchant then uses the modified pricing information in calculating the cost of the selected items.
CAPEC-202: Create Malicious Client
An adversary creates a client application to interface with a target service where the client violates assumptions the service makes about clients. Services that have designated client applications (as opposed to services that use general client applications, such as IMAP or POP mail servers which can interact with any IMAP or POP client) may assume that the client will follow specific procedures.
CAPEC-207: Removing Important Client Functionality
An adversary removes or disables functionality on the client that the server assumes to be present and trustworthy.
CAPEC-208: Removing/short-circuiting 'Purse' logic: removing/mutating 'cash' decrements
An attacker removes or modifies the logic on a client associated with monetary calculations resulting in incorrect information being sent to the server. A server may rely on a client to correctly compute monetary information. For example, a server might supply a price for an item and then rely on the client to correctly compute the total cost of a purchase given the number of items the user is buying. If the attacker can remove or modify the logic that controls these calculations, they can return incorrect values to the server. The attacker can use this to make purchases for a fraction of the legitimate cost or otherwise avoid correct billing for activities.
CAPEC-21: Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers
An adversary guesses, obtains, or "rides" a trusted identifier (e.g. session ID, resource ID, cookie, etc.) to perform authorized actions under the guise of an authenticated user or service.
CAPEC-31: Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. There are several different forms of this attack. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the adversary to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the adversary before it is sent back to the server. Here the adversary seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information.
CAPEC-383: Harvesting Information via API Event Monitoring
An adversary hosts an event within an application framework and then monitors the data exchanged during the course of the event for the purpose of harvesting any important data leaked during the transactions. One example could be harvesting lists of usernames or userIDs for the purpose of sending spam messages to those users. One example of this type of attack involves the adversary creating an event within the sub-application. Assume the adversary hosts a "virtual sale" of rare items. As other users enter the event, the attacker records via AiTM (CAPEC-94) proxy the user_ids and usernames of everyone who attends. The adversary would then be able to spam those users within the application using an automated script.
CAPEC-384: Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
CAPEC-385: Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation
An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
CAPEC-386: Application API Navigation Remapping
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
CAPEC-387: Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content
An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
CAPEC-388: Application API Button Hijacking
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.