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.
7797 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-656C-X8X7-W3C6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-17 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-17 00:30Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Portal product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content integration). The supported version that is affected is 12.2.1.4.0. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle WebCenter Portal. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle WebCenter Portal, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle WebCenter Portal accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle WebCenter Portal accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.4 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-20992"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-16T22:15:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Portal product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content integration). The supported version that is affected is 12.2.1.4.0. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle WebCenter Portal. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle WebCenter Portal, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle WebCenter Portal accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle WebCenter Portal accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.4 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).",
"id": "GHSA-656c-x8x7-w3c6",
"modified": "2024-04-17T00:30:53Z",
"published": "2024-04-17T00:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-20992"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2024.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-656Q-FX2W-8CCV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-11 18:31 – Updated: 2025-02-28 02:44Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.7-beta1, 2.4.7-p3, 2.4.6-p8, 2.4.5-p10, 2.4.4-p11 and earlier are affected by an Improper Access Control vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. A low-privileged attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.7-beta1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.7-p4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.6-p1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.6-p9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.5-p1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.5-p11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.4-p12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.7"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.6"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.5"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.4"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.8-beta1"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/project-community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24429"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-02-28T02:44:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-11T18:15:45Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.7-beta1, 2.4.7-p3, 2.4.6-p8, 2.4.5-p10, 2.4.4-p11 and earlier are affected by an Improper Access Control vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. A low-privileged attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.",
"id": "GHSA-656q-fx2w-8ccv",
"modified": "2025-02-28T02:44:21Z",
"published": "2025-02-11T18:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24429"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb25-08.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Magento Improper Access Control vulnerability"
}
GHSA-657C-V2H8-HPVJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:14 – Updated: 2025-04-12 12:46The WPML plugin before 3.1.9 for WordPress does not properly handle multiple actions in a request, which allows remote attackers to bypass nonce checks and perform arbitrary actions via a request containing an action POST parameter, an action GET parameter, and a valid nonce for the action GET parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-2792"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-03-30T14:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The WPML plugin before 3.1.9 for WordPress does not properly handle multiple actions in a request, which allows remote attackers to bypass nonce checks and perform arbitrary actions via a request containing an action POST parameter, an action GET parameter, and a valid nonce for the action GET parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-657c-v2h8-hpvj",
"modified": "2025-04-12T12:46:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:14:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-2792"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://klikki.fi/adv/wpml.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/130839/WordPress-WPML-Missing-Authentication.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2015/Mar/79"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://wpml.org/2015/03/wpml-security-update-bug-and-fix"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-657G-VHPR-8XV5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:14 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:14FastBack Mount in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager FastBack 6.1.x before 6.1.11.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by connecting to the Mount port.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-0119"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-04-06T00:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "FastBack Mount in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager FastBack 6.1.x before 6.1.11.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by connecting to the Mount port.",
"id": "GHSA-657g-vhpr-8xv5",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:14:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:14:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-0119"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21699645"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-659X-8694-84C2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:03 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:03An elevation of privilege vulnerability in Smart Lock could enable a local malicious user to access Smart Lock settings without a PIN. This issue is rated as Moderate because it first requires physical access to an unlocked device where Smart Lock was the last settings pane accessed by the user. Product: Android. Versions: 5.0.2, 5.1.1, 6.0, 6.0.1. Android ID: A-29055171.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-6769"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-01-12T15:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An elevation of privilege vulnerability in Smart Lock could enable a local malicious user to access Smart Lock settings without a PIN. This issue is rated as Moderate because it first requires physical access to an unlocked device where Smart Lock was the last settings pane accessed by the user. Product: Android. Versions: 5.0.2, 5.1.1, 6.0, 6.0.1. Android ID: A-29055171.",
"id": "GHSA-659x-8694-84c2",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:03:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:03:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-6769"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2016-12-01.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/94703"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-65FG-V8CP-9QVC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-13 15:31 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:39An improper privilege management vulnerability [CWE-269] in FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 6.4.0 through 6.4.11, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions and FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 6.4.0 through 6.4.11, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions API may allow a remote and authenticated API admin user to access some system settings such as the mail server settings through the API via a stolen GUI session ID.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-36638"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-13T13:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An improper privilege management vulnerability [CWE-269] in FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 6.4.0 through 6.4.11, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions and FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 6.4.0 through 6.4.11, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions API may allow a remote and authenticated API admin user to access some system settings such as the mail server settings through the API via a stolen GUI session ID.",
"id": "GHSA-65fg-v8cp-9qvc",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:39:11Z",
"published": "2023-09-13T15:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36638"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-22-522"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-65GP-G5GJ-7RFH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-17 15:31 – Updated: 2026-05-17 15:31A vulnerability was determined in Metasoft 美特软件 MetaCRM up to 6.4.0 Beta06. This impacts an unknown function of the file /common/jsp/upload3.jsp. Executing a manipulation of the argument File can lead to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8758"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-17T14:16:22Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was determined in Metasoft \u7f8e\u7279\u8f6f\u4ef6 MetaCRM up to 6.4.0 Beta06. This impacts an unknown function of the file /common/jsp/upload3.jsp. Executing a manipulation of the argument File can lead to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-65gp-g5gj-7rfh",
"modified": "2026-05-17T15:31:42Z",
"published": "2026-05-17T15:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8758"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ucn9h68n9289.feishu.cn/wiki/XmoNwpJjJiQrBtkLMitccF56ntb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/811283"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/364385"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/364385/cti"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-65HM-PWJ5-73PW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-16 19:31 – Updated: 2025-09-16 19:31The MCP Server provided by ExecuteAutomation at https://github.com/executeautomation/mcp-database-server provides an MCP interface for agentic workflows to interact with different kinds of database servers such as PostgreSQL database. However, the mcp-database-server MCP Server distributed via the npm package @executeautomation/database-server fails to implement proper security control that properly enforce a "read-only" mode and as such it is vulnerable to abuse and attacks on the affected database servers such as PostgreSQL (and potentially other db servers that expose elevated functionalities) and which may result in denial of service and other unexpected behavior.
This MCP Server is also publicly published in the npm registry: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@executeautomation/database-server
Vulnerable code
The vulnerable code to SQL injection takes shape in several ways:
- startsWith("SELECT") can include multiple queries because the pg driver for the client.query() supports multi queries if terminated with a ;
- startsWith("SELECT") can include denial of service queries for stored procedures and other internal db functions
The tool call here in index.ts is vulnerable:
// Handle tool calls
server.setRequestHandler(CallToolRequestSchema, async (request) => {
switch (request.params.name) {
case "read_query": {
const query = request.params.arguments?.query as string;
if (!query.trim().toLowerCase().startsWith("select")) {
throw new Error("Only SELECT queries are allowed with read_query");
}
try {
const result = await dbAll(query);
return {
content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
isError: false,
};
} catch (error: any) {
throw new Error(`SQL Error: ${error.message}`);
}
}
The MCP Server exposes the tool read_query with a naive attempt to guard for exclusive "read-only" mode that allows only data retrieval from the server by performing a check on the provided query string to ensure that it starts with a "SELECT" query.
In short, the code check startWith("select") is not an adequate security control to strict for read-only mode queries and can be abused for side-effects and database-level operations.
Exploitation
While allowing only SELECT type queries might seem like a good defense to allow only data retrieval and not data manipulation in any way (hence, "read-only" mode), it is a non-suficient way of protecting against database servers that expose extra functionality through internal function calls.
Several examples that will allow side effects through SELECT queries:
1. Stored procedures: SELECT some_function_that_updates_data();
2. Internal database administrative operations: SELECT pg_terminate_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE ...;
Even when the database is known not to have any stored procedures defined, an attacker can still cause significant availability and service disruption by executing pg_terminate_backend().
Following is a reproduction:
- Simulate a long-running query, for example:
query = "SELECT pg_sleep(5 * 60)" - Now, from the MCP programmatic interface, execute the following query
SELECT pid, usename, state, query FROM pg_stat_activity;to get the PID for the long running query - Next, use the same MCP interface to then request to run the following query:
SELECT pg_terminate_backend(PID);and observe the long running query is now terminated
Similar database side-effects may be found in MySQL or SQLite.
Impact
The above exploitation surfaces two significant security risks: a denial of service that affects availability and confidentiality dislcosure that allows users unauthorized access to queries running on the server and potential leak of data.
Recommendation
- Don't rely solely on the "starts with"
SELECT - Strict access to specific tables that the user is only authorized to query for
- Do not allow multiple SQL queries to be chained together like
SELECT * ...; INSERT INTO ... - Require users that adopt this MCP Server to use fine-grained permissions on the database server with strict and explicit access to specific capabilities on the server.
CVE Details
Recommended CWE: CWE-284: Improper Access Control Recommendec CVSS: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
References and Prior work
- GitHub Kanban MCP Server found vulnerable to command injection.
- iOS Simulator MCP Server found vulnerable to command injection.
- Liran's Node.js Secure Coding for educational materials on injection attacks and secure coding practices.
- How to Bypass Access Control in PostgreSQL in Simple PSQL MCP Server for SQL Injection
- Reference example from prior security research on this topic, demonstrating how vulnerable MCP Server connected to Cursor is abused with prompt injection to bypass the developer's intended logic:
Credit
Disclosed by Liran Tal
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@executeautomation/database-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59333"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-16T19:31:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-16T15:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The MCP Server provided by ExecuteAutomation at https://github.com/executeautomation/mcp-database-server provides an MCP interface for agentic workflows to interact with different kinds of database servers such as PostgreSQL database. However, the `mcp-database-server` MCP Server distributed via the npm package `@executeautomation/database-server` fails to implement proper security control that properly enforce a \"read-only\" mode and as such it is vulnerable to abuse and attacks on the affected database servers such as PostgreSQL (and potentially other db servers that expose elevated functionalities) and which may result in denial of service and other unexpected behavior.\n\nThis MCP Server is also publicly published in the npm registry: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@executeautomation/database-server\n\n## Vulnerable code\n\nThe vulnerable code to SQL injection takes shape in several ways:\n- `startsWith(\"SELECT\")` can include multiple queries because the pg driver for the `client.query()` supports multi queries if terminated with a `;`\n- `startsWith(\"SELECT\")` can include denial of service queries for stored procedures and other internal db functions\n\nThe tool call [here in index.ts](https://github.com/executeautomation/mcp-database-server/blob/d6afa4be08eb05343195635fa9462746a6be3a59/index.ts#L272C1-L291C6) is vulnerable:\n\n```\n// Handle tool calls\nserver.setRequestHandler(CallToolRequestSchema, async (request) =\u003e {\n switch (request.params.name) {\n case \"read_query\": {\n const query = request.params.arguments?.query as string;\n \n if (!query.trim().toLowerCase().startsWith(\"select\")) {\n throw new Error(\"Only SELECT queries are allowed with read_query\");\n }\n\n try {\n const result = await dbAll(query);\n return {\n content: [{ type: \"text\", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],\n isError: false,\n };\n } catch (error: any) {\n throw new Error(`SQL Error: ${error.message}`);\n }\n }\n```\n\nThe MCP Server exposes the tool `read_query` with a naive attempt to guard for exclusive \"read-only\" mode that allows only data retrieval from the server by performing a check on the provided query string to ensure that it starts with a \"SELECT\" query.\n\nIn short, the code check `startWith(\"select\")` is not an adequate security control to strict for read-only mode queries and can be abused for side-effects and database-level operations.\n\n## Exploitation\n\nWhile allowing only `SELECT` type queries might seem like a good defense to allow only data retrieval and not data manipulation in any way (hence, \"read-only\" mode), it is a non-suficient way of protecting against database servers that expose extra functionality through internal function calls.\n\nSeveral examples that will allow side effects through `SELECT` queries:\n1. Stored procedures: `SELECT some_function_that_updates_data();`\n2. Internal database administrative operations: `SELECT pg_terminate_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE ...;`\n\nEven when the database is known not to have any stored procedures defined, an attacker can still cause significant availability and service disruption by executing `pg_terminate_backend()`.\n\nFollowing is a reproduction:\n\n- Simulate a long-running query, for example: `query = \"SELECT pg_sleep(5 * 60)\"`\n- Now, from the MCP programmatic interface, execute the following query `SELECT pid, usename, state, query FROM pg_stat_activity;` to get the PID for the long running query\n- Next, use the same MCP interface to then request to run the following query: `SELECT pg_terminate_backend(PID);` and observe the long running query is now terminated\n\nSimilar database side-effects may be found in MySQL or SQLite.\n\n## Impact\n\nThe above exploitation surfaces two significant security risks: a denial of service that affects availability and confidentiality dislcosure that allows users unauthorized access to queries running on the server and potential leak of data.\n\n## Recommendation\n\n- Don\u0027t rely solely on the \"starts with\" `SELECT`\n- Strict access to specific tables that the user is only authorized to query for\n- Do not allow multiple SQL queries to be chained together like `SELECT * ...; INSERT INTO ...`\n- Require users that adopt this MCP Server to use fine-grained permissions on the database server with strict and explicit access to specific capabilities on the server.\n\n## CVE Details\n\nRecommended CWE: CWE-284: Improper Access Control\nRecommendec CVSS: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H\n\n## References and Prior work\n\n1. GitHub Kanban MCP Server found [vulnerable to command injection](https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-6jx8-rcjx-vmwf).\n2. iOS Simulator MCP Server found [vulnerable to command injection](https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-6f6r-m9pv-67jw).\n3. Liran\u0027s [Node.js Secure Coding](https://www.nodejs-security.com/book/command-injection) for educational materials on injection attacks and secure coding practices.\n4. [How to Bypass Access Control in PostgreSQL in Simple PSQL MCP Server for SQL Injection](https://www.nodejs-security.com/blog/how-to-bypass-access-control-in-postgresql-in-simple-psql-mcp-server-for-sql-injection)\n5. Reference example from prior security research on this topic, demonstrating how vulnerable MCP Server connected to Cursor is abused with prompt injection to bypass the developer\u0027s intended logic:\n\n\n\n## Credit\n\nDisclosed by [Liran Tal](https://lirantal.com)",
"id": "GHSA-65hm-pwj5-73pw",
"modified": "2025-09-16T19:31:56Z",
"published": "2025-09-16T19:31:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/executeautomation/mcp-database-server/security/advisories/GHSA-65hm-pwj5-73pw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59333"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/executeautomation/mcp-database-server"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "@executeautomation/database-server does not properly restrict access, bypassing a \"read-only\" mode"
}
GHSA-65QM-2W7W-W7H5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-10 18:30 – Updated: 2024-09-10 18:30Microsoft Power Automate Desktop Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43479"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-10T17:15:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Microsoft Power Automate Desktop Remote Code Execution Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-65qm-2w7w-w7h5",
"modified": "2024-09-10T18:30:47Z",
"published": "2024-09-10T18:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43479"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-43479"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-65R9-74HC-QWQR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:09 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:09core/html/parser/HTMLConstructionSite.cpp in the DOM implementation in Blink, as used in Google Chrome before 43.0.2357.65, allows remote attackers to bypass the Same Origin Policy via crafted JavaScript code that appends a child to a SCRIPT element, related to the insert and executeReparentTask functions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-1253"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-05-20T10:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "core/html/parser/HTMLConstructionSite.cpp in the DOM implementation in Blink, as used in Google Chrome before 43.0.2357.65, allows remote attackers to bypass the Same Origin Policy via crafted JavaScript code that appends a child to a SCRIPT element, related to the insert and executeReparentTask functions.",
"id": "GHSA-65r9-74hc-qwqr",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:09:52Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:09:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-1253"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=464552"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201506-04"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?revision=191807\u0026view=revision"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2015/05/stable-channel-update_19.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-updates/2015-05/msg00091.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-updates/2015-11/msg00015.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3267"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/74723"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1032375"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.