CWE-284
DiscouragedImproper Access Control
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Incomplete
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
7802 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-3MXM-3QX9-6GQ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:03 – Updated: 2022-10-22 12:00A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay, where it does not properly protect the authorization token when authorizing email addresses for repository email notifications. This flaw allows an attacker to add email addresses they do not own to repository notifications.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-27831"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-522"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-27T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay, where it does not properly protect the authorization token when authorizing email addresses for repository email notifications. This flaw allows an attacker to add email addresses they do not own to repository notifications.",
"id": "GHSA-3mxm-3qx9-6gq2",
"modified": "2022-10-22T12:00:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:03:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-27831"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905758"
}
],
"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-3P65-3MVV-FJCQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-17 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-21 19:01The miniOrange Discord Integration WordPress plugin before 2.1.6 does not have authorisation and CSRF in some of its AJAX actions, allowing any logged in users, such as subscriber to call them, and disable the app for example
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3082"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-17T12:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The miniOrange Discord Integration WordPress plugin before 2.1.6 does not have authorisation and CSRF in some of its AJAX actions, allowing any logged in users, such as subscriber to call them, and disable the app for example",
"id": "GHSA-3p65-3mvv-fjcq",
"modified": "2022-10-21T19:01:14Z",
"published": "2022-10-17T19:00:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3082"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/a91d0501-c2a9-4c6c-b5da-b3fc29442a4f"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3P7X-94Q9-JQ9X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-05 18:30 – Updated: 2026-02-05 21:43pgAdmin versions 9.11 are affected by a Restore restriction bypass via key disclosure vulnerability that occurs when running in server mode and performing restores from PLAIN-format dump files. An attacker with access to the pgAdmin web interface can observe an active restore operation, extract the \restrict key in real time, and race the restore process by overwriting the restore script with a payload that re-enables meta-commands using \unrestrict <key>. This results in reliable command execution on the pgAdmin host during the restore operation.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "pgadmin4"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-1707"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-639"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-05T21:43:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-05T18:16:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "pgAdmin versions 9.11 are affected by a Restore restriction bypass via key disclosure vulnerability that occurs when running in server mode and performing restores from PLAIN-format dump files. An attacker with access to the pgAdmin web interface can observe an active restore operation, extract the `\\restrict` key in real time, and race the restore process by overwriting the restore script with a payload that re-enables meta-commands using `\\unrestrict \u003ckey\u003e`. This results in reliable command execution on the pgAdmin host during the restore operation.",
"id": "GHSA-3p7x-94q9-jq9x",
"modified": "2026-02-05T21:43:48Z",
"published": "2026-02-05T18:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1707"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/issues/9518"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/commit/62e2d18b0261f88086db65059a6078db07169f18"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "pgadmin4 affected by a Restore restriction bypass via key disclosure vulnerability"
}
GHSA-3P8X-C3HM-XMP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-09 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-09 18:30An improper access control vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSOAR PaaS 7.6.0 through 7.6.2, FortiSOAR PaaS 7.5.0 through 7.5.1, FortiSOAR PaaS 7.4 all versions, FortiSOAR PaaS 7.3 all versions, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.6.0 through 7.6.2, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.5.0 through 7.5.1, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.4 all versions, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.3 all versions may allow information disclosure to an authenticated attacker via crafted requests
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59810"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-09T18:15:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An improper access control vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSOAR PaaS 7.6.0 through 7.6.2, FortiSOAR PaaS 7.5.0 through 7.5.1, FortiSOAR PaaS 7.4 all versions, FortiSOAR PaaS 7.3 all versions, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.6.0 through 7.6.2, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.5.0 through 7.5.1, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.4 all versions, FortiSOAR on-premise 7.3 all versions may allow information disclosure to an authenticated attacker via crafted requests",
"id": "GHSA-3p8x-c3hm-xmp2",
"modified": "2025-12-09T18:30:46Z",
"published": "2025-12-09T18:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59810"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-25-601"
}
],
"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-3PCR-VJHR-9FHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-04 21:32 – Updated: 2026-03-05 21:30Inappropriate implementation in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 145.0.7632.159 allowed a remote attacker to potentially perform out of bounds memory access via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3543"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-04T20:16:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Inappropriate implementation in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 145.0.7632.159 allowed a remote attacker to potentially perform out of bounds memory access via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)",
"id": "GHSA-3pcr-vjhr-9fhf",
"modified": "2026-03-05T21:30:33Z",
"published": "2026-03-04T21:32:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3543"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/03/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/485267831"
}
],
"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-3PF2-JJMR-VRV6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-13 06:30 – Updated: 2026-04-13 06:30Access control vulnerability in the memo module. Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability will affect availability and confidentiality.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34860"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-13T04:16:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Access control vulnerability in the memo module.\nImpact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability will affect availability and confidentiality.",
"id": "GHSA-3pf2-jjmr-vrv6",
"modified": "2026-04-13T06:30:29Z",
"published": "2026-04-13T06:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34860"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2026/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletinlaptops/2026/4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3PG8-5QJJ-JMQC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:15 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:15All versions of NVIDIA Windows GPU Display Driver contain a vulnerability in the kernel mode layer (nvlddmkm.sys) handler for DxgDdiEscape where improper access controls allow a regular user to write a part of the registry intended for privileged users only, leading to escalation of privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-8824"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-12-16T21:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "All versions of NVIDIA Windows GPU Display Driver contain a vulnerability in the kernel mode layer (nvlddmkm.sys) handler for DxgDdiEscape where improper access controls allow a regular user to write a part of the registry intended for privileged users only, leading to escalation of privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-3pg8-5qjj-jmqc",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:15:16Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:15:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-8824"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4278"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95015"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3PMH-24WP-XPF4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-15 22:32 – Updated: 2026-06-08 19:53Impact
It was possible to retrieve user notification settings or list all users via API.
Patches
- https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/pull/17256
References
Thanks to Hector Ruiz Ruiz & NaxusAI for responsibly disclosing this vulnerability to Weblate.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Weblate"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.15"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-67715"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-12-15T22:32:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-16T01:15:52Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nIt was possible to retrieve user notification settings or list all users via API.\n\n### Patches\n\n* https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/pull/17256\n\n### References\n\nThanks to Hector Ruiz Ruiz \u0026 NaxusAI for responsibly disclosing this vulnerability to Weblate.",
"id": "GHSA-3pmh-24wp-xpf4",
"modified": "2026-06-08T19:53:41Z",
"published": "2025-12-15T22:32:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/security/advisories/GHSA-3pmh-24wp-xpf4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-67715"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/pull/17256"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/weblate/PYSEC-2025-233.yaml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Weblate has Systematic User and Project Enumeration via Broken Authorization in REST API (IDOR)"
}
GHSA-3PRP-9GF7-4RXX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-17 21:34 – Updated: 2026-04-24 21:01Summary
A Mass Assignment vulnerability in the DocumentStore creation endpoint allows authenticated users to control the primary key (id) and internal state fields of DocumentStore entities.
Because the service uses repository.save() with a client-supplied primary key, the POST create endpoint behaves as an implicit UPSERT operation. This enables overwriting existing DocumentStore objects.
In multi-workspace or multi-tenant deployments, this can lead to cross-workspace object takeover and broken object-level authorization (IDOR), allowing an attacker to reassign or modify DocumentStore objects belonging to other workspaces.
Details
The DocumentStore entity defines a globally unique primary key:
@PrimaryGeneratedColumn('uuid')
id: string
The create logic is implemented as:
const documentStore = repo.create(newDocumentStore)
const dbResponse = await repo.save(documentStore)
Here is no DTO allowlist or field filtering before persistence. The entire request body is mapped directly to the entity. TypeORM save() behavior:
- If the primary key (id) exists → UPDATE
- If not → INSERT
Because id is accepted from the client, the create endpoint effectively functions as an UPSERT endpoint.
This allows an authenticated user to submit:
{
"id": "<existing_store_id>",
"name": "modified",
"description": "modified",
"status": "SYNC",
"embeddingConfig": "...",
"vectorStoreConfig": "...",
"recordManagerConfig": "..."
}
If a DocumentStore with the supplied id already exists, save() performs an UPDATE rather than creating a new record.
Importantly:
The primary key is globally unique (uuid) It is not composite with workspaceId The create path does not enforce ownership validation before calling save() This introduces a broken object-level authorization risk.
If an attacker can obtain or enumerate a valid DocumentStore UUID belonging to another workspace, they can: Submit a POST create request with that UUID. Trigger an UPDATE on the existing record. Potentially overwrite fields including workspaceId, effectively reassigning the object to their own workspace.
Because the service layer does not verify that the existing record belongs to the caller’s workspace before updating, this may result in cross-workspace object takeover.
Additionally, several service functions retrieve DocumentStore entities by id without consistently scoping by workspaceId, increasing the risk of IDOR if controller-level protections are bypassed or misconfigured.
PoC
- Create a normal DocumentStore in Workspace A.
- Capture its id from the API response.
- From Workspace B (or another authenticated context), submit:
POST /api/v1/document-store
Content-Type: application/json
{
"id": "<id_from_workspace_A>",
"name": "hijacked",
"description": "hijacked"
}
Because the service uses repository.save() with a client-supplied primary key:
- The existing record is updated.
- The object may become reassigned depending on how workspaceId is handled at controller level.
- If workspaceId is overwritten during the create flow, the store is effectively migrated to the attacker’s workspace.
- This demonstrates object takeover via UPSERT semantics on a create endpoint.
Impact
This vulnerability enables:
- Mass Assignment on server-managed fields
- Overwrite of existing objects via implicit UPSERT behavior
- Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA)
- Potential cross-workspace object takeover in multi-tenant deployments
- In a SaaS or shared-workspace environment, an attacker who can obtain or guess a valid UUID may modify or reassign DocumentStore objects belonging to other tenants.
Because DocumentStore objects control embedding providers, vector store configuration, and record management logic, successful takeover can affect data indexing, retrieval, and AI workflow execution.
This represents a high-risk authorization flaw in multi-tenant environments.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.0.13"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "flowise"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41277"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-639",
"CWE-915"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-17T21:34:16Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-23T20:16:16Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA Mass Assignment vulnerability in the DocumentStore creation endpoint allows authenticated users to control the primary key (id) and internal state fields of DocumentStore entities.\n\nBecause the service uses repository.save() with a client-supplied primary key, the POST create endpoint behaves as an implicit UPSERT operation. This enables overwriting existing DocumentStore objects.\n\nIn multi-workspace or multi-tenant deployments, this can lead to cross-workspace object takeover and broken object-level authorization (IDOR), allowing an attacker to reassign or modify DocumentStore objects belonging to other workspaces.\n\n### Details\nThe DocumentStore entity defines a globally unique primary key:\n\n```typescript\n@PrimaryGeneratedColumn(\u0027uuid\u0027)\nid: string\n```\n\nThe create logic is implemented as:\n```typescript\nconst documentStore = repo.create(newDocumentStore)\nconst dbResponse = await repo.save(documentStore)\n```\n\nHere is no DTO allowlist or field filtering before persistence. The entire request body is mapped directly to the entity.\nTypeORM save() behavior:\n\n1. If the primary key (id) exists \u2192 UPDATE\n2. If not \u2192 INSERT\n\nBecause id is accepted from the client, the create endpoint effectively functions as an UPSERT endpoint.\n\nThis allows an authenticated user to submit:\n\n```json\n{\n \"id\": \"\u003cexisting_store_id\u003e\",\n \"name\": \"modified\",\n \"description\": \"modified\",\n \"status\": \"SYNC\",\n \"embeddingConfig\": \"...\",\n \"vectorStoreConfig\": \"...\",\n \"recordManagerConfig\": \"...\"\n}\n```\nIf a DocumentStore with the supplied id already exists, save() performs an UPDATE rather than creating a new record.\n\nImportantly:\n\nThe primary key is globally unique (uuid)\nIt is not composite with workspaceId\nThe create path does not enforce ownership validation before calling save()\nThis introduces a broken object-level authorization risk.\n\nIf an attacker can obtain or enumerate a valid DocumentStore UUID belonging to another workspace, they can:\nSubmit a POST create request with that UUID.\nTrigger an UPDATE on the existing record.\nPotentially overwrite fields including workspaceId, effectively reassigning the object to their own workspace.\n\nBecause the service layer does not verify that the existing record belongs to the caller\u2019s workspace before updating, this may result in cross-workspace object takeover.\n\nAdditionally, several service functions retrieve DocumentStore entities by id without consistently scoping by workspaceId, increasing the risk of IDOR if controller-level protections are bypassed or misconfigured.\n\n### PoC\n\n1. Create a normal DocumentStore in Workspace A.\n2. Capture its id from the API response.\n3. From Workspace B (or another authenticated context), submit:\n\n```http\nPOST /api/v1/document-store\nContent-Type: application/json\n\n{\n \"id\": \"\u003cid_from_workspace_A\u003e\",\n \"name\": \"hijacked\",\n \"description\": \"hijacked\"\n}\n```\n\nBecause the service uses repository.save() with a client-supplied primary key:\n\n- The existing record is updated.\n- The object may become reassigned depending on how workspaceId is handled at controller level.\n- If workspaceId is overwritten during the create flow, the store is effectively migrated to the attacker\u2019s workspace.\n- This demonstrates object takeover via UPSERT semantics on a create endpoint.\n\n### Impact\nThis vulnerability enables:\n\n- Mass Assignment on server-managed fields\n- Overwrite of existing objects via implicit UPSERT behavior\n- Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA)\n- Potential cross-workspace object takeover in multi-tenant deployments\n- In a SaaS or shared-workspace environment, an attacker who can obtain or guess a valid UUID may modify or reassign DocumentStore objects belonging to other tenants.\n\nBecause DocumentStore objects control embedding providers, vector store configuration, and record management logic, successful takeover can affect data indexing, retrieval, and AI workflow execution.\n\nThis represents a high-risk authorization flaw in multi-tenant environments.",
"id": "GHSA-3prp-9gf7-4rxx",
"modified": "2026-04-24T21:01:04Z",
"published": "2026-04-17T21:34:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise/security/advisories/GHSA-3prp-9gf7-4rxx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41277"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Flowise: Mass Assignment in DocumentStore Create Endpoint Leads to Cross-Workspace Object Takeover (IDOR)"
}
GHSA-3PXQ-XG4J-RGQX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-07 18:30 – Updated: 2025-04-08 18:34An issue in RUoYi v.4.8.0 allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges via the SysDictTypeController component
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-28413"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-07T16:15:25Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue in RUoYi v.4.8.0 allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges via the SysDictTypeController component",
"id": "GHSA-3pxq-xg4j-rgqx",
"modified": "2025-04-08T18:34:21Z",
"published": "2025-04-07T18:30:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-28413"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/20210607/cve_public/blob/main/ruoyi_case/CVE-2025-28413.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/yangzongzhuan/RuoYi"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-1
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Mitigation MIT-46
Strategy: Separation of Privilege
- Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
- Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
CAPEC-19: Embedding Scripts within Scripts
An adversary leverages the capability to execute their own script by embedding it within other scripts that the target software is likely to execute due to programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute scripts.
CAPEC-441: Malicious Logic Insertion
An adversary installs or adds malicious logic (also known as malware) into a seemingly benign component of a fielded system. This logic is often hidden from the user of the system and works behind the scenes to achieve negative impacts. With the proliferation of mass digital storage and inexpensive multimedia devices, Bluetooth and 802.11 support, new attack vectors for spreading malware are emerging for things we once thought of as innocuous greeting cards, picture frames, or digital projectors. This pattern of attack focuses on systems already fielded and used in operation as opposed to systems and their components that are still under development and part of the supply chain.
CAPEC-478: Modification of Windows Service Configuration
An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to modify the execution parameters of a Windows service. The goal of this attack is to execute a malicious binary in place of an existing service.
CAPEC-479: Malicious Root Certificate
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization and installs a new root certificate on a compromised system. Certificates are commonly used for establishing secure TLS/SSL communications within a web browser. When a user attempts to browse a website that presents a certificate that is not trusted an error message will be displayed to warn the user of the security risk. Depending on the security settings, the browser may not allow the user to establish a connection to the website. Adversaries have used this technique to avoid security warnings prompting users when compromised systems connect over HTTPS to adversary controlled web servers that spoof legitimate websites in order to collect login credentials.
CAPEC-502: Intent Spoof
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, issues an intent directed toward a specific trusted application's component in an attempt to achieve a variety of different objectives including modification of data, information disclosure, and data injection. Components that have been unintentionally exported and made public are subject to this type of an attack. If the component trusts the intent's action without verififcation, then the target application performs the functionality at the adversary's request, helping the adversary achieve the desired negative technical impact.
CAPEC-503: WebView Exposure
An adversary, through a malicious web page, accesses application specific functionality by leveraging interfaces registered through WebView's addJavascriptInterface API. Once an interface is registered to WebView through addJavascriptInterface, it becomes global and all pages loaded in the WebView can call this interface.
CAPEC-536: Data Injected During Configuration
An attacker with access to data files and processes on a victim's system injects malicious data into critical operational data during configuration or recalibration, causing the victim's system to perform in a suboptimal manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-546: Incomplete Data Deletion in a Multi-Tenant Environment
An adversary obtains unauthorized information due to insecure or incomplete data deletion in a multi-tenant environment. If a cloud provider fails to completely delete storage and data from former cloud tenants' systems/resources, once these resources are allocated to new, potentially malicious tenants, the latter can probe the provided resources for sensitive information still there.
CAPEC-550: Install New Service
When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Adversaries may install a new service which will be executed at startup (on a Windows system, by modifying the registry). The service name may be disguised by using a name from a related operating system or benign software. Services are usually run with elevated privileges.
CAPEC-551: Modify Existing Service
When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Modifying existing services may break existing services or may enable services that are disabled/not commonly used.
CAPEC-552: Install Rootkit
An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to install malware that alters the functionality and information provide by targeted operating system API calls. Often referred to as rootkits, it is often used to hide the presence of programs, files, network connections, services, drivers, and other system components.
CAPEC-556: Replace File Extension Handlers
When a file is opened, its file handler is checked to determine which program opens the file. File handlers are configuration properties of many operating systems. Applications can modify the file handler for a given file extension to call an arbitrary program when a file with the given extension is opened.
CAPEC-558: Replace Trusted Executable
An adversary exploits weaknesses in privilege management or access control to replace a trusted executable with a malicious version and enable the execution of malware when that trusted executable is called.
CAPEC-562: Modify Shared File
An adversary manipulates the files in a shared location by adding malicious programs, scripts, or exploit code to valid content. Once a user opens the shared content, the tainted content is executed.
CAPEC-563: Add Malicious File to Shared Webroot
An adversaries may add malicious content to a website through the open file share and then browse to that content with a web browser to cause the server to execute the content. The malicious content will typically run under the context and permissions of the web server process, often resulting in local system or administrative privileges depending on how the web server is configured.
CAPEC-564: Run Software at Logon
Operating system allows logon scripts to be run whenever a specific user or users logon to a system. If adversaries can access these scripts, they may insert additional code into the logon script. This code can allow them to maintain persistence or move laterally within an enclave because it is executed every time the affected user or users logon to a computer. Modifying logon scripts can effectively bypass workstation and enclave firewalls. Depending on the access configuration of the logon scripts, either local credentials or a remote administrative account may be necessary.
CAPEC-578: Disable Security Software
An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to disable security tools so that detection does not occur. This can take the form of killing processes, deleting registry keys so that tools do not start at run time, deleting log files, or other methods.