CWE-285
DiscouragedImproper Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
2318 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-2W3M-74V7-48PP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-23 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:33The EmbedPress – Embed PDF, Google Docs, Vimeo, Wistia, Embed YouTube Videos, Audios, Maps & Embed Any Documents in Gutenberg & Elementor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access of functionality due to insufficient authorization validation on the PDF embed block in all versions up to, and including, 3.9.12. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to embed PDF blocks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-1803"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-23T13:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The EmbedPress \u2013 Embed PDF, Google Docs, Vimeo, Wistia, Embed YouTube Videos, Audios, Maps \u0026 Embed Any Documents in Gutenberg \u0026 Elementor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access of functionality due to insufficient authorization validation on the PDF embed block in all versions up to, and including, 3.9.12. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to embed PDF blocks.",
"id": "GHSA-2w3m-74v7-48pp",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:33:14Z",
"published": "2024-05-23T15:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1803"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3055856"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/175e08ce-aec2-427a-90e0-f955711d58b2?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2WG5-PQFG-HVJ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-10 18:30 – Updated: 2024-09-10 18:30Microsoft Outlook for iOS Information Disclosure Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43482"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-10T17:15:36Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Microsoft Outlook for iOS Information Disclosure Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-2wg5-pqfg-hvj9",
"modified": "2024-09-10T18:30:47Z",
"published": "2024-09-10T18:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43482"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-43482"
}
],
"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-2WQ7-HX2P-5748
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-30 18:31 – Updated: 2025-04-30 18:31Improper authorization in Azure Bot Framework SDK allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30389"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-30T18:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper authorization in Azure Bot Framework SDK allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-2wq7-hx2p-5748",
"modified": "2025-04-30T18:31:55Z",
"published": "2025-04-30T18:31:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30389"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-30389"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2X3R-RPMR-WMWH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-20 21:30 – Updated: 2025-04-17 21:30The application management module has a vulnerability in permission verification. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability causes unexpected clear of device applications.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-46312"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-20T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The application management module has a vulnerability in permission verification. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability causes unexpected clear of device applications.",
"id": "GHSA-2x3r-rpmr-wmwh",
"modified": "2025-04-17T21:30:38Z",
"published": "2022-12-20T21:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-46312"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2022/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/en/docs/security/update/security-bulletins-202212-0000001462975397"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2XGG-2X8H-8XW4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 00:09 – Updated: 2026-07-14 00:09Summary
Kimai 2.56.0 contains an authenticated improper authorization vulnerability in the Web rate editing flows for projects, customers, and activities. A user who can edit one authorized parent object can combine that authorized parent ID with the rate ID of a different, unauthorized parent object and thereby modify the unauthorized rate record.
This affects ProjectRate, CustomerRate, and ActivityRate editing. The issue is caused by missing parent-child consistency validation and allows cross-project, cross-customer, or cross-activity tampering of billing-related configuration.
Details
The issue affects the following Web routes:
GET/POST /en/admin/project/{id}/rate/{rate}GET/POST /en/admin/customer/{id}/rate/{rate}GET/POST /en/admin/activity/{id}/rate/{rate}
In both cases, the parent object and the rate object are resolved independently from user-controlled route parameters. The controller only checks whether the current user may edit the parent object referenced by {id}, but it does not verify that the child rate object referenced by {rate} actually belongs to that same parent.
In these controllers, there is no validation such as:
$rate->getProject() === $project$rate->getCustomer() === $customer$rate->getActivity() === $activity
This missing binding check is especially notable because the API delete endpoints already enforce the expected parent-child relationship.
This shows that parent-child consistency is already a recognized invariant in the application design, but the Web edit endpoints fail to enforce it for projects, customers, and activities.
A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.
Impact
This vulnerability allows authenticated users to tamper with billing-related rate configuration outside their authorized project, customer, or activity scope. An attacker can modify rate values belonging to other teams or business domains, which can affect time-based settlement, inherited pricing, cost calculations, budget reporting, revenue reporting, and downstream invoice generation.
Because the issue directly persists changes into kimai2_projects_rates, kimai2_customers_rates, and kimai2_activities_rates, it is a real cross-scope integrity vulnerability rather than a UI-only flaw. The attack breaks team-based isolation boundaries for high-value financial configuration.
Solution
The rate edit forms for customers, projects and activities now verify that the rate belongs to the parent referenced in the URL and reject the request otherwise.
See https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-2xgg-2x8h-8xw4 for more information.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.56.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "kimai/kimai"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.57.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-52826"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-639"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-14T00:09:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nKimai 2.56.0 contains an authenticated improper authorization vulnerability in the Web rate editing flows for projects, customers, and activities. A user who can edit one authorized parent object can combine that authorized parent ID with the rate ID of a different, unauthorized parent object and thereby modify the unauthorized rate record.\n\nThis affects `ProjectRate`, `CustomerRate`, and `ActivityRate` editing. The issue is caused by missing parent-child consistency validation and allows cross-project, cross-customer, or cross-activity tampering of billing-related configuration.\n\n### Details\n\nThe issue affects the following Web routes:\n\n- `GET/POST /en/admin/project/{id}/rate/{rate}`\n- `GET/POST /en/admin/customer/{id}/rate/{rate}`\n- `GET/POST /en/admin/activity/{id}/rate/{rate}`\n\nIn both cases, the parent object and the rate object are resolved independently from user-controlled route parameters. The controller only checks whether the current user may edit the parent object referenced by `{id}`, but it does not verify that the child rate object referenced by `{rate}` actually belongs to that same parent.\n\nIn these controllers, there is no validation such as:\n\n- `$rate-\u003egetProject() === $project`\n- `$rate-\u003egetCustomer() === $customer`\n- `$rate-\u003egetActivity() === $activity`\n\nThis missing binding check is especially notable because the API delete endpoints already enforce the expected parent-child relationship.\n\nThis shows that parent-child consistency is already a recognized invariant in the application design, but the Web edit endpoints fail to enforce it for projects, customers, and activities.\n\n*A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.*\n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability allows authenticated users to tamper with billing-related rate configuration outside their authorized project, customer, or activity scope. An attacker can modify rate values belonging to other teams or business domains, which can affect time-based settlement, inherited pricing, cost calculations, budget reporting, revenue reporting, and downstream invoice generation.\n\nBecause the issue directly persists changes into `kimai2_projects_rates`, `kimai2_customers_rates`, and `kimai2_activities_rates`, it is a real cross-scope integrity vulnerability rather than a UI-only flaw. The attack breaks team-based isolation boundaries for high-value financial configuration.\n\n# Solution\n\nThe rate edit forms for `customers`, `projects` and `activities` now verify that the rate belongs to the parent referenced in the URL and reject the request otherwise.\n\nSee [https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-2xgg-2x8h-8xw4](https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-2xgg-2x8h-8xw4) for more information.",
"id": "GHSA-2xgg-2x8h-8xw4",
"modified": "2026-07-14T00:09:35Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T00:09:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai/security/advisories/GHSA-2xgg-2x8h-8xw4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Kimai: Improper Authorization in Project, Customer, and Activity Rate Edit Endpoints Allows Cross-Scope Rate Manipulation"
}
GHSA-32CJ-5WX4-GQ8P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-12 21:31 – Updated: 2025-08-07 18:20Vault and Vault Enterprise did not properly validate the JSON Web Token (JWT) role-bound audience claim when using the Vault JWT auth method. This may have resulted in Vault validating a JWT the audience and role-bound claims do not match, allowing an invalid login to succeed when it should have been rejected.
This vulnerability, CVE-2024-5798, was fixed in Vault and Vault Enterprise 1.17.0, 1.16.3, and 1.15.9
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.17.0-rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "1.17.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"1.17.0-rc1"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.16.0-rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "1.16.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.11.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-5798"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-06-12T22:25:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-12T19:15:51Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Vault and Vault Enterprise did not properly validate the JSON Web Token (JWT) role-bound audience claim when using the Vault JWT auth method. This may have resulted in Vault validating a JWT the audience and role-bound claims do not match, allowing an invalid login to succeed when it should have been rejected.\n\nThis vulnerability, CVE-2024-5798, was fixed in Vault and Vault Enterprise 1.17.0, 1.16.3, and 1.15.9",
"id": "GHSA-32cj-5wx4-gq8p",
"modified": "2025-08-07T18:20:35Z",
"published": "2024-06-12T21:31:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5798"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2024-11-vault-incorrectly-validated-json-web-tokens-jwt-audience-claims/67770"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-2921"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "HashiCorp Vault Incorrectly Validated JSON Web Tokens (JWT) Audience Claims"
}
GHSA-32J2-P2QQ-HH3C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-22 00:31 – Updated: 2024-02-22 00:31An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.7.6, all versions starting from 16.8 before 16.8.3, all versions starting from 16.9 before 16.9.1. Users with the Guest role can change Custom dashboard projects settings contrary to permissions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-0861"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-425"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-22T00:15:51Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.7.6, all versions starting from 16.8 before 16.8.3, all versions starting from 16.9 before 16.9.1. Users with the `Guest` role can change `Custom dashboard projects` settings contrary to permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-32j2-p2qq-hh3c",
"modified": "2024-02-22T00:31:02Z",
"published": "2024-02-22T00:31:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-0861"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2316435"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/439240"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-32Q6-RR98-CJQV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-13 19:59 – Updated: 2025-01-14 21:08Overview
OpenFGA v1.3.8 to v1.8.2 (Helm chart openfga-0.1.38 to openfga-0.2.19, docker v1.3.8 to v.1.8.2) are vulnerable to authorization bypass when certain Check and ListObject calls are executed.
Am I Affected?
You are affected by this authorization bypass vulnerability if you are using OpenFGA v1.3.8 to v1.8.2, specifically under the following conditions:
1. Calling Check API or ListObjects with a model that uses conditions, and
2. OpenFGA is configured with caching enabled (OPENFGA_CHECK_QUERY_CACHE_ENABLED), and
3. Check API call or ListObjects API calls contain contextual tuples that include conditions.
Fix
Upgrade to v1.8.3. This upgrade is backwards compatible.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.3.8"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-56323"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-01-13T19:59:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-13T22:15:14Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Overview\nOpenFGA v1.3.8 to v1.8.2 (Helm chart openfga-0.1.38 to openfga-0.2.19, docker v1.3.8 to v.1.8.2) are vulnerable to authorization bypass when certain Check and ListObject calls are executed.\n\n### Am I Affected?\nYou are affected by this authorization bypass vulnerability if you are using OpenFGA v1.3.8 to v1.8.2, specifically under the following conditions: \n1. Calling Check API or ListObjects with a model that uses [conditions](https://openfga.dev/docs/modeling/conditions), and \n2. OpenFGA is configured with caching enabled (`OPENFGA_CHECK_QUERY_CACHE_ENABLED`), and \n3. Check API call or ListObjects API calls contain [contextual tuples](https://openfga.dev/docs/concepts#what-are-contextual-tuples) that include conditions.\n\n### Fix\nUpgrade to v1.8.3. This upgrade is backwards compatible.",
"id": "GHSA-32q6-rr98-cjqv",
"modified": "2025-01-14T21:08:16Z",
"published": "2025-01-13T19:59:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/security/advisories/GHSA-32q6-rr98-cjqv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-56323"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3384"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenFGA Authorization Bypass"
}
GHSA-32XP-M6VG-GWPJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:25 – Updated: 2022-12-20 21:22Pipeline Maven Integration Plugin 3.8.2 and earlier does not perform a permission check in an HTTP endpoint.
This allows attackers with Overall/Read access to Jenkins to enumerate credentials IDs of credentials stored in Jenkins. Those can be used as part of an attack to capture the credentials using another vulnerability.
An enumeration of credentials IDs in Pipeline Maven Integration Plugin 3.8.3 requires the appropriate permissions.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:pipeline-maven"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.8.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-2233"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-20T21:22:39Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-08-12T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Pipeline Maven Integration Plugin 3.8.2 and earlier does not perform a permission check in an HTTP endpoint.\n\nThis allows attackers with Overall/Read access to Jenkins to enumerate credentials IDs of credentials stored in Jenkins. Those can be used as part of an attack to capture the credentials using another vulnerability.\n\nAn enumeration of credentials IDs in Pipeline Maven Integration Plugin 3.8.3 requires the appropriate permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-32xp-m6vg-gwpj",
"modified": "2022-12-20T21:22:39Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:25:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-2233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/pipeline-maven-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2020-08-12/#SECURITY-1794%20(1)"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/08/12/4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Missing permission check in Jenkins Pipeline Maven Integration Plugin allows enumerating credentials IDs"
}
GHSA-339J-WG47-93C6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-15 06:30 – Updated: 2024-06-15 06:30The FooEvents for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized arbitrary file uploads due to an improper capability setting on the 'display_ticket_themes_page' function in versions up to, and including, 1.19.20. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with contributor-level capabilities or above, to upload arbitrary files on the affected site's server which may make remote code execution possible. This was partially patched in 1.19.20, and fully patched in 1.19.21.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-6000"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-15T04:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The FooEvents for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized arbitrary file uploads due to an improper capability setting on the \u0027display_ticket_themes_page\u0027 function in versions up to, and including, 1.19.20. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with contributor-level capabilities or above, to upload arbitrary files on the affected site\u0027s server which may make remote code execution possible. This was partially patched in 1.19.20, and fully patched in 1.19.21.",
"id": "GHSA-339j-wg47-93c6",
"modified": "2024-06-15T06:30:25Z",
"published": "2024-06-15T06:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-6000"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://help.fooevents.com/docs/topics/changelogs/fooevents-for-woocommerce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/1080810b-ec9a-44fb-b4da-49b28646a441?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
- Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-104: Cross Zone Scripting
An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-39: Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens
In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated. If client or server-side application components reinterpret that data as authentication tokens or data (such as store item pricing or wallet information) then even opaquely manipulating that data may bear fruit for an Attacker. In this pattern an attacker undermines the assumption that client side tokens have been adequately protected from tampering through use of encryption or obfuscation.
CAPEC-402: Bypassing ATA Password Security
An adversary exploits a weakness in ATA security on a drive to gain access to the information the drive contains without supplying the proper credentials. ATA Security is often employed to protect hard disk information from unauthorized access. The mechanism requires the user to type in a password before the BIOS is allowed access to drive contents. Some implementations of ATA security will accept the ATA command to update the password without the user having authenticated with the BIOS. This occurs because the security mechanism assumes the user has first authenticated via the BIOS prior to sending commands to the drive. Various methods exist for exploiting this flaw, the most common being installing the ATA protected drive into a system lacking ATA security features (a.k.a. hot swapping). Once the drive is installed into the new system the BIOS can be used to reset the drive password.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-5: Blue Boxing
This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
{'xhtml:b': 'This attack pattern is included in CAPEC for historical purposes.'}
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization to gather system-specific data and sensitive information within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist). These contain information about the system configuration, software, operating system, and security. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.