Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-693

Discouraged

Protection Mechanism Failure

Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Draft

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.

979 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-H2W2-28MJ-M289

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-19 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-30 18:31
VLAI
Details

HCL AION is affected by a Missing Security Response Headers vulnerability. The absence of standard security headers may weaken the application’s overall security posture and increase its susceptibility to common web-based attacks.

Severity
3.5 (Low)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-55249"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-19T18:16:04Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "HCL AION is affected by a Missing Security Response Headers vulnerability. The absence of standard security headers may weaken the application\u2019s overall security posture and increase its susceptibility to common web-based attacks.",
  "id": "GHSA-h2w2-28mj-m289",
  "modified": "2026-01-30T18:31:13Z",
  "published": "2026-01-19T18:30:27Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-55249"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.hcl-software.com/kb_view.do?sys_kb_id=4b92474633de7ad4159a05273e5c7b4b\u0026searchTerm=kb0127995#"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H2W2-V7J6-XQM4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 14:26 – Updated: 2026-06-18 14:26
VLAI
Summary
npm PraisonAI AgentLoop onToolCall approval runs after tool execution
Details

Summary

The published npm package praisonai exports createAgentLoop(), whose onToolCall callback is documented and exampled as an approval hook. The implementation calls PraisonAI's generateText() wrapper with the caller's executable tools first, receives toolResults, and only then calls onToolCall().

Because AI SDK generateText() executes tools with an execute function as part of the generation call, onToolCall can deny a tool only after the sensitive side effect has already happened. PraisonAI then returns finishReason: "tool_rejected", which is a false security signal: the rejected tool already ran.

The PoV is deterministic and local-only. It uses mock AI SDK modules, no live model call, no API key, and no network target. The tool increments an in-memory counter rather than touching the filesystem or executing commands.

Technical Details

In src/praisonai-ts/src/ai/agent-loop.ts, the public config says:

/** On tool call callback (for approval) */
onToolCall?: (toolCall: ToolCallInfo) => Promise<boolean>;

The inline approval example also asks a user for approval and returns the decision:

onToolCall: async (toolCall) => {
  const approved = await askUserForApproval(toolCall);
  return approved;
}

However, AgentLoop.step() calls generateText() with the executable tools before invoking onToolCall:

const result = await generateText({
  model: this.config.model,
  messages: this.messages as any,
  tools: this.config.tools,
  maxSteps: 1,
});

It then materializes toolResults:

toolResults: result.toolResults.map(tr => ({
  toolCallId: tr.toolCallId,
  toolName: tr.toolName,
  result: tr.result,
})),

Only afterward does the approval callback run:

if (this.config.onToolCall) {
  for (const toolCall of step.toolCalls) {
    const approved = await this.config.onToolCall(toolCall);
    if (!approved) {
      this.complete = true;
      step.finishReason = 'tool_rejected';
      break;
    }
  }
}

src/praisonai-ts/src/ai/generate-text.ts forwards the caller's tools directly to AI SDK:

const result = await sdk.generateText({
  model,
  ...
  tools: options.tools,
  maxSteps: options.maxSteps,
  ...
});

AI SDK documents that generateText() "generates text and calls tools", and that tools with an execute function run automatically unless approval is handled before execution with needsApproval.

The published npm:praisonai@1.7.1 dist files preserve the same order:

  • dist/ai/agent-loop.js lines 150-157 call generateText() with executable tools.
  • lines 162-171 materialize toolResults.
  • lines 183-195 call onToolCall() and set tool_rejected afterward.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

This is not a trust-model-only issue. PraisonAI explicitly labels onToolCall as an approval callback and shows an approval example. A user who returns false from that callback expects the tool not to run.

It also conflicts with the AI SDK execution model PraisonAI wraps:

  • AI SDK generateText() executes tools that include an execute function.
  • AI SDK approval is a pre-execution boundary (needsApproval), not a post-execution notification.
  • AI SDK loop control documentation treats "a tool call needs approval" as a condition that stops or pauses the loop before executing the tool.

PraisonAI's current behavior instead creates a post-execution audit hook while naming and documenting it as approval.

PoV

Run from a local reproduction checkout:

node poc/pov_poc.js 1.7.1

Expected output includes:

{
  "praisonaiVersion": "1.7.1",
  "createAgentLoopExported": true,
  "eventOrder": ["tool-executed", "approval-denied"],
  "sideEffects": 1,
  "finishReason": "tool_rejected",
  "toolCallCount": 1,
  "toolResultCount": 1,
  "rejectedAfterExecution": true,
  "vulnerable": true,
  "patchedControl": {
    "order": ["approval-denied"],
    "sideEffects": 0,
    "toolCallCount": 1,
    "toolResultCount": 0,
    "blocksBeforeExecution": true
  }
}

The PoV installs npm:praisonai@1.7.1 into a temporary project and supplies mock ai and @ai-sdk/openai modules. The mocked generateText() returns one tool-call intent and executes a supplied execute handler if present. This keeps the proof deterministic and isolates PraisonAI's ordering bug.

The vulnerable run uses createAgentLoop() with:

  • a dangerousWrite tool whose execute() handler increments an in-memory side-effect counter and records tool-executed;
  • an onToolCall approval callback that always returns false and records approval-denied.

The observed order is:

tool-executed > approval-denied

That proves denial happens after execution. The toolResults array contains the tool's result even though PraisonAI reports finishReason: "tool_rejected".

The patched-control comparison strips executable handlers before the model step, requests approval on the tool-call intent, and only executes if approval succeeds. With the same denial decision, the control output is:

approval-denied
sideEffects = 0
toolResultCount = 0

PoC

The PoV section above contains the local reproduction command, input, and decisive output.

Impact

Any application using npm PraisonAI createAgentLoop() with onToolCall as a human-in-the-loop or policy approval boundary can execute denied tools.

If the application exposes the agent loop to lower-trust prompts or users and registers powerful tools, an attacker can cause the model to call a tool that the approval callback denies. The denial occurs too late. Depending on the registered tool, impact can include file modification, command execution, external API calls, data mutation, credential use, or other side effects with the privileges of the PraisonAI process.

The report does not claim that npm PraisonAI exposes this as a default network service. It is a library-level approval-boundary bypass in the exported TypeScript agent-loop API.

Severity

Suggested severity: High.

Rationale:

  • AV: common deployment pattern is an application exposing agent prompts over a network.
  • AC: attacker only needs to induce a tool call.
  • PR: conservative base score assumes the attacker can submit prompts to the application.
  • UI: no additional operator action is needed for the tool to execute before denial; even a denial callback is too late.
  • S: impact is in the PraisonAI-hosting application process.
  • C/I/A: depends on registered tools; shell/file/API tools can affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

If maintainers score only local scripts that process untrusted repositories or prompts, AV:L may be reasonable. If they score public unauthenticated prompt endpoints built on this API, PR:N may be reasonable.

Suggested Fix

Do not pass executable tool handlers into generateText() before approval.

One safe shape:

  1. Convert configured tools into intent-only tool definitions without execute.
  2. Call generateText() to obtain the model's tool-call intent.
  3. Invoke onToolCall(toolCall) before any side effect.
  4. Execute the selected tool only if approval returns true.
  5. Append approved tool results to the conversation and continue the loop.

Alternatively, if PraisonAI wants to delegate approval to AI SDK v6, translate onToolCall into per-tool needsApproval semantics so AI SDK pauses before calling execute.

Regression tests should include:

  • onToolCall returns false and the tool execute() counter remains zero;
  • onToolCall returns true and the tool executes exactly once;
  • tool_rejected is never reported together with a tool result produced by the denied tool;
  • streaming and non-streaming loop variants use the same approval ordering if added later.

Affected Package/Versions

  • Repository: MervinPraison/PraisonAI
  • Package: npm:praisonai
  • Component: TypeScript AgentLoop
  • Current head validated: 1ad58ca02975ff1398efeda694ea2ab78f20cf3e
  • Current tag validated: v4.6.58
  • Latest npm package validated: 1.7.1

Suggested affected range:

npm:praisonai >= 1.4.0, <= 1.7.1

Selected version sweep:

  • 1.0.0: package main cannot be required in the selected test environment.
  • 1.2.0: createAgentLoop is not exported.
  • 1.3.6: createAgentLoop is not exported.
  • 1.4.0: vulnerable.
  • 1.5.0: vulnerable.
  • 1.5.4: vulnerable.
  • 1.6.0: vulnerable.
  • 1.7.0: vulnerable.
  • 1.7.1: vulnerable.

Advisory History

This is distinct from known and previously submitted PraisonAI issues:

  • GHSA-ffp3-3562-8cv3 covers Python praisonaiagents approval cache keyed by tool name rather than invocation arguments.
  • GHSA-qwgj-rrpj-75xm covers Python Chainlit UI overriding configured approval mode with auto.
  • GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2 / poc covers Python HTTPApproval approval-page XSS.
  • poc covers npm TypeScript AgentOS missing authentication.
  • poc covers npm TypeScript codeMode sandbox escape.
  • poc covers npm TypeScript MCPServer missing authentication.

No visible local or GitHub advisory covers npm TypeScript AgentLoop.onToolCall executing after tool results already exist.

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.7.1"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "praisonai"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.4.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.7.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693",
      "CWE-862",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T14:26:51Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nThe published npm package `praisonai` exports `createAgentLoop()`, whose `onToolCall` callback is documented and exampled as an approval hook. The implementation calls PraisonAI\u0027s `generateText()` wrapper with the caller\u0027s executable tools first, receives `toolResults`, and only then calls `onToolCall()`.\n\nBecause AI SDK `generateText()` executes tools with an `execute` function as part of the generation call, `onToolCall` can deny a tool only after the sensitive side effect has already happened. PraisonAI then returns `finishReason: \"tool_rejected\"`, which is a false security signal: the rejected tool already ran.\n\nThe PoV is deterministic and local-only. It uses mock AI SDK modules, no live model call, no API key, and no network target. The tool increments an in-memory counter rather than touching the filesystem or executing commands.\n\n## Technical Details\n\nIn `src/praisonai-ts/src/ai/agent-loop.ts`, the public config says:\n\n```ts\n/** On tool call callback (for approval) */\nonToolCall?: (toolCall: ToolCallInfo) =\u003e Promise\u003cboolean\u003e;\n```\n\nThe inline approval example also asks a user for approval and returns the decision:\n\n```ts\nonToolCall: async (toolCall) =\u003e {\n  const approved = await askUserForApproval(toolCall);\n  return approved;\n}\n```\n\nHowever, `AgentLoop.step()` calls `generateText()` with the executable tools before invoking `onToolCall`:\n\n```ts\nconst result = await generateText({\n  model: this.config.model,\n  messages: this.messages as any,\n  tools: this.config.tools,\n  maxSteps: 1,\n});\n```\n\nIt then materializes `toolResults`:\n\n```ts\ntoolResults: result.toolResults.map(tr =\u003e ({\n  toolCallId: tr.toolCallId,\n  toolName: tr.toolName,\n  result: tr.result,\n})),\n```\n\nOnly afterward does the approval callback run:\n\n```ts\nif (this.config.onToolCall) {\n  for (const toolCall of step.toolCalls) {\n    const approved = await this.config.onToolCall(toolCall);\n    if (!approved) {\n      this.complete = true;\n      step.finishReason = \u0027tool_rejected\u0027;\n      break;\n    }\n  }\n}\n```\n\n`src/praisonai-ts/src/ai/generate-text.ts` forwards the caller\u0027s tools directly to AI SDK:\n\n```ts\nconst result = await sdk.generateText({\n  model,\n  ...\n  tools: options.tools,\n  maxSteps: options.maxSteps,\n  ...\n});\n```\n\nAI SDK documents that `generateText()` \"generates text and calls tools\", and that tools with an `execute` function run automatically unless approval is handled before execution with `needsApproval`.\n\nThe published `npm:praisonai@1.7.1` dist files preserve the same order:\n\n- `dist/ai/agent-loop.js` lines 150-157 call `generateText()` with executable tools.\n- lines 162-171 materialize `toolResults`.\n- lines 183-195 call `onToolCall()` and set `tool_rejected` afterward.\n\n### Why This Is Not Intended Behavior\n\nThis is not a trust-model-only issue. PraisonAI explicitly labels `onToolCall` as an approval callback and shows an approval example. A user who returns `false` from that callback expects the tool not to run.\n\nIt also conflicts with the AI SDK execution model PraisonAI wraps:\n\n- AI SDK `generateText()` executes tools that include an `execute` function.\n- AI SDK approval is a pre-execution boundary (`needsApproval`), not a post-execution notification.\n- AI SDK loop control documentation treats \"a tool call needs approval\" as a condition that stops or pauses the loop before executing the tool.\n\nPraisonAI\u0027s current behavior instead creates a post-execution audit hook while naming and documenting it as approval.\n\n## PoV\n\nRun from a local reproduction checkout:\n\n```bash\nnode poc/pov_poc.js 1.7.1\n```\n\nExpected output includes:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"praisonaiVersion\": \"1.7.1\",\n  \"createAgentLoopExported\": true,\n  \"eventOrder\": [\"tool-executed\", \"approval-denied\"],\n  \"sideEffects\": 1,\n  \"finishReason\": \"tool_rejected\",\n  \"toolCallCount\": 1,\n  \"toolResultCount\": 1,\n  \"rejectedAfterExecution\": true,\n  \"vulnerable\": true,\n  \"patchedControl\": {\n    \"order\": [\"approval-denied\"],\n    \"sideEffects\": 0,\n    \"toolCallCount\": 1,\n    \"toolResultCount\": 0,\n    \"blocksBeforeExecution\": true\n  }\n}\n```\n\nThe PoV installs `npm:praisonai@1.7.1` into a temporary project and supplies mock `ai` and `@ai-sdk/openai` modules. The mocked `generateText()` returns one tool-call intent and executes a supplied `execute` handler if present. This keeps the proof deterministic and isolates PraisonAI\u0027s ordering bug.\n\nThe vulnerable run uses `createAgentLoop()` with:\n\n- a `dangerousWrite` tool whose `execute()` handler increments an in-memory side-effect counter and records `tool-executed`;\n- an `onToolCall` approval callback that always returns `false` and records `approval-denied`.\n\nThe observed order is:\n\n```text\ntool-executed \u003e approval-denied\n```\n\nThat proves denial happens after execution. The `toolResults` array contains the tool\u0027s result even though PraisonAI reports `finishReason: \"tool_rejected\"`.\n\nThe patched-control comparison strips executable handlers before the model step, requests approval on the tool-call intent, and only executes if approval succeeds. With the same denial decision, the control output is:\n\n```text\napproval-denied\nsideEffects = 0\ntoolResultCount = 0\n```\n\n## PoC\n\nThe PoV section above contains the local reproduction command, input, and decisive output.\n\n## Impact\n\nAny application using npm PraisonAI `createAgentLoop()` with `onToolCall` as a human-in-the-loop or policy approval boundary can execute denied tools.\n\nIf the application exposes the agent loop to lower-trust prompts or users and registers powerful tools, an attacker can cause the model to call a tool that the approval callback denies. The denial occurs too late. Depending on the registered tool, impact can include file modification, command execution, external API calls, data mutation, credential use, or other side effects with the privileges of the PraisonAI process.\n\nThe report does not claim that npm PraisonAI exposes this as a default network service. It is a library-level approval-boundary bypass in the exported TypeScript agent-loop API.\n\n### Severity\n\nSuggested severity: High.\n\nRationale:\n\n- `AV`: common deployment pattern is an application exposing agent prompts over a network.\n- `AC`: attacker only needs to induce a tool call.\n- `PR`: conservative base score assumes the attacker can submit prompts to the application.\n- `UI`: no additional operator action is needed for the tool to execute before denial; even a denial callback is too late.\n- `S`: impact is in the PraisonAI-hosting application process.\n- `C/I/A`: depends on registered tools; shell/file/API tools can affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability.\n\nIf maintainers score only local scripts that process untrusted repositories or prompts, `AV:L` may be reasonable. If they score public unauthenticated prompt endpoints built on this API, `PR:N` may be reasonable.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nDo not pass executable tool handlers into `generateText()` before approval.\n\nOne safe shape:\n\n1. Convert configured tools into intent-only tool definitions without `execute`.\n2. Call `generateText()` to obtain the model\u0027s tool-call intent.\n3. Invoke `onToolCall(toolCall)` before any side effect.\n4. Execute the selected tool only if approval returns true.\n5. Append approved tool results to the conversation and continue the loop.\n\nAlternatively, if PraisonAI wants to delegate approval to AI SDK v6, translate `onToolCall` into per-tool `needsApproval` semantics so AI SDK pauses before calling `execute`.\n\nRegression tests should include:\n\n- `onToolCall` returns false and the tool `execute()` counter remains zero;\n- `onToolCall` returns true and the tool executes exactly once;\n- `tool_rejected` is never reported together with a tool result produced by the denied tool;\n- streaming and non-streaming loop variants use the same approval ordering if added later.\n\n## Affected Package/Versions\n\n- Repository: `MervinPraison/PraisonAI`\n- Package: `npm:praisonai`\n- Component: TypeScript `AgentLoop`\n- Current head validated: `1ad58ca02975ff1398efeda694ea2ab78f20cf3e`\n- Current tag validated: `v4.6.58`\n- Latest npm package validated: `1.7.1`\n\nSuggested affected range:\n\n```text\nnpm:praisonai \u003e= 1.4.0, \u003c= 1.7.1\n```\n\nSelected version sweep:\n\n- `1.0.0`: package main cannot be required in the selected test environment.\n- `1.2.0`: `createAgentLoop` is not exported.\n- `1.3.6`: `createAgentLoop` is not exported.\n- `1.4.0`: vulnerable.\n- `1.5.0`: vulnerable.\n- `1.5.4`: vulnerable.\n- `1.6.0`: vulnerable.\n- `1.7.0`: vulnerable.\n- `1.7.1`: vulnerable.\n\n## Advisory History\n\nThis is distinct from known and previously submitted PraisonAI issues:\n\n- `GHSA-ffp3-3562-8cv3` covers Python `praisonaiagents` approval cache keyed by tool name rather than invocation arguments.\n- `GHSA-qwgj-rrpj-75xm` covers Python Chainlit UI overriding configured approval mode with `auto`.\n- `GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2` / poc covers Python `HTTPApproval` approval-page XSS.\n- poc covers npm TypeScript `AgentOS` missing authentication.\n- poc covers npm TypeScript `codeMode` sandbox escape.\n- poc covers npm TypeScript `MCPServer` missing authentication.\n\nNo visible local or GitHub advisory covers npm TypeScript `AgentLoop.onToolCall` executing after tool results already exist.",
  "id": "GHSA-h2w2-v7j6-xqm4",
  "modified": "2026-06-18T14:26:51Z",
  "published": "2026-06-18T14:26:51Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-h2w2-v7j6-xqm4"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "npm PraisonAI AgentLoop onToolCall approval runs after tool execution"
}

GHSA-H3CW-J9J9-5PC4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-05 02:49 – Updated: 2025-10-22 03:30
VLAI
Details

Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) component in Oracle Java SE 7 through Update 11, and OpenJDK 7, allows user-assisted remote attackers to bypass the Java security sandbox via unspecified vectors related to JMX, aka "Issue 52," a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-1490.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2013-0431"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2013-01-31T14:55:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) component in Oracle Java SE 7 through Update 11, and OpenJDK 7, allows user-assisted remote attackers to bypass the Java security sandbox via unspecified vectors related to JMX, aka \"Issue 52,\" a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-1490.",
  "id": "GHSA-h3cw-j9j9-5pc4",
  "modified": "2025-10-22T03:30:32Z",
  "published": "2022-05-05T02:49:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-0431"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A16579"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A19418"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Support/Advisories/MGASA-2013-0056"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2013-0431"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/critical-java-vulnerabilies-confirmed-in-latest-version"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://blogs.computerworld.com/malware-and-vulnerabilities/21693/yet-another-java-security-flaw-discovered-number-53"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2013-03/msg00001.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq\u0026m=136439120408139\u0026w=2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq\u0026m=136733161405818\u0026w=2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-0237.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-0247.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2013/Jan/142"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2013/Jan/195"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-201406-32.xml"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.informationweek.com/security/application-security/java-hacker-uncovers-two-flaws-in-latest/240146717"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/858729"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.mandriva.com/security/advisories?name=MDVSA-2013:095"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpufeb2013-1841061.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/525387/30/0/threaded"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA13-032A.html"
    }
  ],
  "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-H4XP-V7GQ-RC9V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:16 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:48
VLAI
Details

Client-side enforcement using JavaScript of server-side security options on the Cohu 3960HD allows an attacker to manipulate options sent to the camera and cause malfunction or code execution, as demonstrated by a client-side "if (!passwordsAreEqual())" test.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-8864"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-11-22T08:29:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Client-side enforcement using JavaScript of server-side security options on the Cohu 3960HD allows an attacker to manipulate options sent to the camera and cause malfunction or code execution, as demonstrated by a client-side \"if (!passwordsAreEqual())\" test.",
  "id": "GHSA-h4xp-v7gq-rc9v",
  "modified": "2025-04-20T03:48:55Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T00:16:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-8864"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bneg.io/2017/05/12/vulnerabilities-in-cohu-3960hd"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H55G-JGGQ-RC4H

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-13 09:30 – Updated: 2024-12-10 15:32
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability has been identified in Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V14 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V15 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V15.1 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V16 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V17 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V18 (All versions). The know-how protection feature in affected products does not properly update the encryption of existing program blocks when a project file is updated.

This could allow attackers with access to the project file to recover previous - yet unprotected - versions of the project without the knowledge of the know-how protection password.

Severity
6.2 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-30757"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-06-13T09:15:17Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability has been identified in Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V14 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V15 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V15.1 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V16 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V17 (All versions), Totally Integrated Automation Portal (TIA Portal) V18 (All versions). The know-how protection feature in affected products does not properly update the encryption of existing program blocks when a project file is updated.\n\nThis could allow attackers with access to the project file to recover previous - yet unprotected - versions of the project without the knowledge of the know-how protection password.",
  "id": "GHSA-h55g-jggq-rc4h",
  "modified": "2024-12-10T15:32:28Z",
  "published": "2023-06-13T09:30:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-30757"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-042050.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-042050.pdf"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H5F8-8PPP-6WXQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-24 00:30 – Updated: 2025-05-15 15:31
VLAI
Details

Inappropriate implementation in Autofill in Google Chrome prior to 121.0.6167.85 allowed a remote attacker to bypass Autofill restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-0809"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-01-24T00:15:08Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Inappropriate implementation in Autofill in Google Chrome prior to 121.0.6167.85 allowed a remote attacker to bypass Autofill restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)",
  "id": "GHSA-h5f8-8ppp-6wxq",
  "modified": "2025-05-15T15:31:18Z",
  "published": "2024-01-24T00:30:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-0809"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2024/01/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_23.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://crbug.com/1497985"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MMI6GXFONZV6HE3BPZO3AP6GUVQLG4JQ"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VXDSGAFQD4BDB4IB2O4ZUSHC3JCVQEKC"
    }
  ],
  "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-H5GQ-678M-J9VV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-12 18:31 – Updated: 2025-08-12 18:31
VLAI
Details

Protection mechanism failure for some Edge Orchestrator software before version 24.11.1 for Intel(R) Tiber(TM) Edge Platform may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable denial of service via adjacent access.

Severity
3.5 (Low)
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
5.1 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-24523"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-08-12T17:15:34Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Protection mechanism failure for some Edge Orchestrator software before version 24.11.1 for Intel(R) Tiber(TM) Edge Platform may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable denial of service via adjacent access.",
  "id": "GHSA-h5gq-678m-j9vv",
  "modified": "2025-08-12T18:31:29Z",
  "published": "2025-08-12T18:31:29Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24523"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-01317.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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-H5Q6-GGHM-9XC3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-11 21:31 – Updated: 2026-06-11 21:31
VLAI
Details

The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5, macOS Ventura 13.7.5. A malicious app may be able to access private information.

Severity
5.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-30431"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-11T19:16:27Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5, macOS Ventura 13.7.5. A malicious app may be able to access private information.",
  "id": "GHSA-h5q6-gghm-9xc3",
  "modified": "2026-06-11T21:31:54Z",
  "published": "2026-06-11T21:31:54Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30431"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122373"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122374"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122375"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H648-GJ34-5X4R

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:20 – Updated: 2023-10-27 16:05
VLAI
Summary
Agent-to-controller security bypass in Jenkins Squash TM Publisher (Squash4Jenkins) Plugin allows writing arbitrary files
Details

Jenkins Squash TM Publisher (Squash4Jenkins) Plugin 1.0.0 and earlier implements an agent-to-controller message that does not implement any validation of its input, allowing attackers able to control agent processes to replace arbitrary files on the Jenkins controller file system with an attacker-controlled JSON string.

Severity
8.1 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:squashtm-publisher-plugin"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "last_affected": "1.0.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-43578"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-15T16:39:54Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-11-12T11:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Jenkins Squash TM Publisher (Squash4Jenkins) Plugin 1.0.0 and earlier implements an agent-to-controller message that does not implement any validation of its input, allowing attackers able to control agent processes to replace arbitrary files on the Jenkins controller file system with an attacker-controlled JSON string.",
  "id": "GHSA-h648-gj34-5x4r",
  "modified": "2023-10-27T16:05:40Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:20:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-43578"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/squashtm-publisher-plugin"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2021-11-12/#SECURITY-2525"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/11/12/1"
    }
  ],
  "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:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Agent-to-controller security bypass in Jenkins Squash TM Publisher (Squash4Jenkins) Plugin allows writing arbitrary files"
}

GHSA-H6PC-JQVF-9HHC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 21:31 – Updated: 2026-05-07 01:05
VLAI
Details

Insufficient policy enforcement in WebUI in Google Chrome on Linux, Mac, Windows, ChromeOS prior to 148.0.7778.96 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass site isolation via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-7946"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-693"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-06T19:16:42Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Insufficient policy enforcement in WebUI in Google Chrome on Linux, Mac, Windows, ChromeOS prior to 148.0.7778.96 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass site isolation via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)",
  "id": "GHSA-h6pc-jqvf-9hhc",
  "modified": "2026-05-07T01:05:51Z",
  "published": "2026-05-06T21:31:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-7946"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/05/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/496016840"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

No mitigation information available for this CWE.

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-107: Cross Site Tracing

Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server.

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-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-20: Encryption Brute Forcing

An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.

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-237: Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another Language

The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries.

CAPEC-36: Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality

An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.

CAPEC-477: Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content

An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.

CAPEC-480: Escaping Virtualization

An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks.

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-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-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-65: Sniff Application Code

An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.

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-74: Manipulating State

The adversary modifies state information maintained by the target software or causes a state transition in hardware. If successful, the target will use this tainted state and execute in an unintended manner.

State management is an important function within a software application. User state maintained by the application can include usernames, payment information, browsing history as well as application-specific contents such as items in a shopping cart. Manipulating user state can be employed by an adversary to elevate privilege, conduct fraudulent transactions or otherwise modify the flow of the application to derive certain benefits.

If there is a hardware logic error in a finite state machine, the adversary can use this to put the system in an undefined state which could cause a denial of service or exposure of secure data.

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.

← Back to the CWE list