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-PHXQ-526M-79PX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-11 09:31 – Updated: 2026-06-11 09:31The Spring GraphQL annotation detection mechanism for @Controller data fetchers may not correctly resolve annotations on methods within type hierarchies. This can be an issue if such annotations are used for authorization decisions. When all conditions are met, security annotations can be ignored at runtime.
Affected versions: Spring for GraphQL 2.0.0 through 2.0.3; 1.4.0 through 1.4.5; 1.3.0 through 1.3.8; 1.0.0 through 1.0.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41856"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-11T07:16:28Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Spring GraphQL annotation detection mechanism for @Controller data fetchers may not correctly resolve annotations on methods within type hierarchies. This can be an issue if such annotations are used for authorization decisions. When all conditions are met, security annotations can be ignored at runtime.\n\nAffected versions:\nSpring for GraphQL 2.0.0 through 2.0.3; 1.4.0 through 1.4.5; 1.3.0 through 1.3.8; 1.0.0 through 1.0.6.",
"id": "GHSA-phxq-526m-79px",
"modified": "2026-06-11T09:31:56Z",
"published": "2026-06-11T09:31:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41856"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://spring.io/security/cve-2026-41856"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PJ33-75X5-32J4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-06 19:55 – Updated: 2024-11-06 23:38Summary
Queue deletion via the HTTP API was not verifying the configure permission of the user.
Impact
Users who had all of the following:
- Valid credentials
- Some permissions for the target virtual host
- HTTP API access
could delete queues it had no (deletion) permissions for.
Workarounds
Disable management plugin and use, for example, Prometheus and Grafana for monitoring.
OWASP Classification
OWASP Top10 A01:2021 – Broken Access Control
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Hex",
"name": "rabbit_common"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.12.7"
},
{
"fixed": "3.12.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51988"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-11-06T19:55:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-06T20:15:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nQueue deletion via the HTTP API was not verifying the `configure` permission of the user.\n\n### Impact\n\nUsers who had all of the following:\n\n1. Valid credentials\n2. Some permissions for the target virtual host\n3. HTTP API access \n\ncould delete queues it had no (deletion) permissions for.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nDisable management plugin and use, for example, [Prometheus and Grafana](https://www.rabbitmq.com/docs/prometheus) for monitoring.\n\n### OWASP Classification\n\nOWASP Top10 A01:2021 \u2013 Broken Access Control\n",
"id": "GHSA-pj33-75x5-32j4",
"modified": "2024-11-06T23:38:44Z",
"published": "2024-11-06T19:55:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/security/advisories/GHSA-pj33-75x5-32j4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51988"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rabbitmq.com/docs/prometheus"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "RabbitMQ HTTP API\u0027s queue deletion endpoint does not verify that the user has a required permission"
}
GHSA-PJ36-FCRG-327J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-10 00:30 – Updated: 2024-07-10 16:51Incorrect access control in BookStack before v24.05.1 allows attackers to confirm existing system users and perform targeted notification email DoS via public facing forms.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "ssddanbrown/bookstack"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "24.05.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-36676"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-07-10T16:51:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-09T22:15:02Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Incorrect access control in BookStack before v24.05.1 allows attackers to confirm existing system users and perform targeted notification email DoS via public facing forms.",
"id": "GHSA-pj36-fcrg-327j",
"modified": "2024-07-10T16:51:36Z",
"published": "2024-07-10T00:30:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-36676"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack/issues/4993"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack/commit/69af9e0dbdefd8c6c951e8afbe2bba141d454beb"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack/releases/tag/v24.05.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.bookstackapp.com/blog/bookstack-release-v24-05-1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "BookStack Incorrect Access Control vulnerability"
}
GHSA-PJ38-V8H9-33P3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:39 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:39The SQL interface in SAP HANA before Revision 102 does not limit the number of login attempts for the SYSTEM user when the password_lock_for_system_user is not supported or is configured as "False," which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass authentication via a brute force attack, aka SAP Security Note 2216869.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-6144"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-08-05T14:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The SQL interface in SAP HANA before Revision 102 does not limit the number of login attempts for the SYSTEM user when the password_lock_for_system_user is not supported or is configured as \"False,\" which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass authentication via a brute force attack, aka SAP Security Note 2216869.",
"id": "GHSA-pj38-v8h9-33p3",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:39:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:39:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-6144"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.onapsis.com/blog/onapsis-publishes-15-advisories-sap-hana-and-building-components"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.onapsis.com/research/security-advisories/sap-hana-system-user-brute-force-attack"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/138443/SAP-HANA-DB-1.00.73.00.389160-SYSTEM-User-Brute-Force.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Aug/91"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/92065"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PJ5P-695Q-PPG6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-28 06:30 – Updated: 2025-07-28 06:30A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in code-projects Online Ordering System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /admin/product.php. The manipulation of the argument image leads to unrestricted upload. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8256"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-434"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-28T05:16:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in code-projects Online Ordering System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /admin/product.php. The manipulation of the argument image leads to unrestricted upload. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-pj5p-695q-ppg6",
"modified": "2025-07-28T06:30:23Z",
"published": "2025-07-28T06:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8256"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zzb1388/cve/issues/28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code-projects.org"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.317844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.317844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.623446"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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-PJJP-267V-J839
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-07 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:32ColdFusion version 2021 update 1 (and earlier) and versions 2018.10 (and earlier) are impacted by an improper access control vulnerability when checking permissions in the CFIDE path. An authenticated attacker could leverage this vulnerability to access and manipulate arbitrary data on the environment.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-40699"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-07T13:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ColdFusion version 2021 update 1 (and earlier) and versions 2018.10 (and earlier) are impacted by an improper access control vulnerability when checking permissions in the CFIDE path. An authenticated attacker could leverage this vulnerability to access and manipulate arbitrary data on the environment. ",
"id": "GHSA-pjjp-267v-j839",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:32:33Z",
"published": "2023-09-07T15:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-40699"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb21-75.html"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-PJP5-FPMR-3349
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-25 21:32 – Updated: 2026-06-25 21:32Summary
When running in HTTP mode with --lockdown-mode enabled, the RepoAccessCache is implemented as a process-global singleton initialized with the first authenticated user's GraphQL client. All subsequent requests from different users share this singleton and their lockdown-related GraphQL queries are executed using the first user's credentials. The singleton is never updated to reflect later users' tokens.
Details
The singleton is defined in pkg/lockdown/lockdown.go:
var (
instance *RepoAccessCache
instanceMu sync.Mutex
)
func GetInstance(client *githubv4.Client, opts ...RepoAccessOption) *RepoAccessCache {
instanceMu.Lock()
defer instanceMu.Unlock()
if instance == nil {
instance = &RepoAccessCache{
client: client, // only stored on first call
}
}
return instance // subsequent callers receive the same object regardless of their client
}
In HTTP mode, pkg/github/dependencies.go calls this per request:
func (d *RequestDeps) GetRepoAccessCache(ctx context.Context) (*lockdown.RepoAccessCache, error) {
gqlClient, err := d.GetGQLClient(ctx) // creates client with request's token
...
instance := lockdown.GetInstance(gqlClient, d.RepoAccessOpts...)
// gqlClient is silently dropped if singleton already exists
return instance, nil
}
The singleton's internal client field is never updated after the first initialization. All lockdown GraphQL queries that check repository access and visibility (queryRepoAccessInfo, called by IsSafeContent) run under the first authenticated user's token for the lifetime of the process.
IsSafeContent is called in at least six places across pkg/github/issues.go and pkg/github/pullrequests.go to decide whether to trust or sanitize content from external contributors.
PoC
The following program demonstrates that two distinct GraphQL clients produce the same singleton pointer, confirming that the second client is discarded:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"net/http"
"github.com/github/github-mcp-server/pkg/lockdown"
"github.com/shurcooL/githubv4"
)
func main() {
httpClientA := &http.Client{}
httpClientB := &http.Client{}
gqlClientA := githubv4.NewEnterpriseClient("https://api.github.com/graphql", httpClientA)
gqlClientB := githubv4.NewEnterpriseClient("https://api.github.com/graphql", httpClientB)
fmt.Printf("gqlClientA (user A token): %p\n", gqlClientA)
fmt.Printf("gqlClientB (user B token): %p\n", gqlClientB)
fmt.Printf("clients are different objects: %v\n\n", gqlClientA != gqlClientB)
instanceForA := lockdown.GetInstance(gqlClientA)
instanceForB := lockdown.GetInstance(gqlClientB)
fmt.Printf("lockdown instance returned for user A: %p\n", instanceForA)
fmt.Printf("lockdown instance returned for user B: %p\n", instanceForB)
fmt.Printf("same singleton returned for both users: %v\n", instanceForA == instanceForB)
}
Output:
gqlClientA (user A token): 0x400044070
gqlClientB (user B token): 0x400044078
clients are different objects: true
lockdown instance returned for user A: 0x400002ecc0
lockdown instance returned for user B: 0x400002ecc0
same singleton returned for both users: true
Impact
This affects deployments running the HTTP server with --lockdown-mode, which is the intended configuration for multi-user scenarios such as GitHub Copilot's managed MCP endpoint.
Three concrete consequences:
First, the ViewerLogin field in cache entries always reflects the first authenticated user's identity. The IsSafeContent check repoInfo.ViewerLogin == strings.ToLower(username) compares this stale value against each subsequent user's login, producing incorrect results for all users except the first.
Second, repository visibility and collaborator access data stored in the cache is evaluated through the first user's token. If user A cannot see a private repository but user B can (or vice versa), the cached isPrivate and hasPushAccess values will reflect user A's view of that repository, causing IsSafeContent to return wrong decisions for user B. In lockdown mode, a wrong true result means potentially injected content from untrusted external contributors is passed to the model without sanitization.
Third, if the first user's token is revoked or expires, all subsequent lockdown GraphQL queries fail with authentication errors. Since getRepoAccessInfo propagates these errors, IsSafeContent returns an error for every request, breaking lockdown protection for all users until the process is restarted.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/github/github-mcp-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.22.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48529"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-25T21:32:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nWhen running in HTTP mode with --lockdown-mode enabled, the RepoAccessCache is implemented as a process-global singleton initialized with the first authenticated user\u0027s GraphQL client. All subsequent requests from different users share this singleton and their lockdown-related GraphQL queries are executed using the first user\u0027s credentials. The singleton is never updated to reflect later users\u0027 tokens.\n\n### Details\n\nThe singleton is defined in pkg/lockdown/lockdown.go:\n\n```go\nvar (\n instance *RepoAccessCache\n instanceMu sync.Mutex\n)\n\nfunc GetInstance(client *githubv4.Client, opts ...RepoAccessOption) *RepoAccessCache {\n instanceMu.Lock()\n defer instanceMu.Unlock()\n if instance == nil {\n instance = \u0026RepoAccessCache{\n client: client, // only stored on first call\n }\n }\n return instance // subsequent callers receive the same object regardless of their client\n}\n```\n\nIn HTTP mode, pkg/github/dependencies.go calls this per request:\n\n```go\nfunc (d *RequestDeps) GetRepoAccessCache(ctx context.Context) (*lockdown.RepoAccessCache, error) {\n gqlClient, err := d.GetGQLClient(ctx) // creates client with request\u0027s token\n ...\n instance := lockdown.GetInstance(gqlClient, d.RepoAccessOpts...)\n // gqlClient is silently dropped if singleton already exists\n return instance, nil\n}\n```\n\nThe singleton\u0027s internal client field is never updated after the first initialization. All lockdown GraphQL queries that check repository access and visibility (queryRepoAccessInfo, called by IsSafeContent) run under the first authenticated user\u0027s token for the lifetime of the process.\n\nIsSafeContent is called in at least six places across pkg/github/issues.go and pkg/github/pullrequests.go to decide whether to trust or sanitize content from external contributors.\n\n### PoC\n\nThe following program demonstrates that two distinct GraphQL clients produce the same singleton pointer, confirming that the second client is discarded:\n\n```go\npackage main\n\nimport (\n \"fmt\"\n \"net/http\"\n \"github.com/github/github-mcp-server/pkg/lockdown\"\n \"github.com/shurcooL/githubv4\"\n)\n\nfunc main() {\n httpClientA := \u0026http.Client{}\n httpClientB := \u0026http.Client{}\n gqlClientA := githubv4.NewEnterpriseClient(\"https://api.github.com/graphql\", httpClientA)\n gqlClientB := githubv4.NewEnterpriseClient(\"https://api.github.com/graphql\", httpClientB)\n\n fmt.Printf(\"gqlClientA (user A token): %p\\n\", gqlClientA)\n fmt.Printf(\"gqlClientB (user B token): %p\\n\", gqlClientB)\n fmt.Printf(\"clients are different objects: %v\\n\\n\", gqlClientA != gqlClientB)\n\n instanceForA := lockdown.GetInstance(gqlClientA)\n instanceForB := lockdown.GetInstance(gqlClientB)\n\n fmt.Printf(\"lockdown instance returned for user A: %p\\n\", instanceForA)\n fmt.Printf(\"lockdown instance returned for user B: %p\\n\", instanceForB)\n fmt.Printf(\"same singleton returned for both users: %v\\n\", instanceForA == instanceForB)\n}\n```\n\nOutput:\n\n```\ngqlClientA (user A token): 0x400044070\ngqlClientB (user B token): 0x400044078\nclients are different objects: true\n\nlockdown instance returned for user A: 0x400002ecc0\nlockdown instance returned for user B: 0x400002ecc0\nsame singleton returned for both users: true\n```\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1642\" height=\"450\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/bec46420-9ba7-458e-8710-62f951cb836a\" /\u003e\n\n\n### Impact\n\nThis affects deployments running the HTTP server with --lockdown-mode, which is the intended configuration for multi-user scenarios such as GitHub Copilot\u0027s managed MCP endpoint.\n\nThree concrete consequences:\n\nFirst, the ViewerLogin field in cache entries always reflects the first authenticated user\u0027s identity. The IsSafeContent check `repoInfo.ViewerLogin == strings.ToLower(username)` compares this stale value against each subsequent user\u0027s login, producing incorrect results for all users except the first.\n\nSecond, repository visibility and collaborator access data stored in the cache is evaluated through the first user\u0027s token. If user A cannot see a private repository but user B can (or vice versa), the cached isPrivate and hasPushAccess values will reflect user A\u0027s view of that repository, causing IsSafeContent to return wrong decisions for user B. In lockdown mode, a wrong true result means potentially injected content from untrusted external contributors is passed to the model without sanitization.\n\nThird, if the first user\u0027s token is revoked or expires, all subsequent lockdown GraphQL queries fail with authentication errors. Since getRepoAccessInfo propagates these errors, IsSafeContent returns an error for every request, breaking lockdown protection for all users until the process is restarted.",
"id": "GHSA-pjp5-fpmr-3349",
"modified": "2026-06-25T21:32:09Z",
"published": "2026-06-25T21:32:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/github/github-mcp-server/security/advisories/GHSA-pjp5-fpmr-3349"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/github/github-mcp-server"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "GitHub MCP Server: Lockdown mode singleton in HTTP server causes cross-user GraphQL client confusion"
}
GHSA-PJPH-5C8J-WM5G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-07 18:30 – Updated: 2024-08-08 15:31An Incorrect Access Control vulnerability was found in /smsa/view_marks.php in Kashipara Responsive School Management System v3.2.0, which allows remote unauthenticated attackers to view MARKS details.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-41243"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-07T17:15:51Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An Incorrect Access Control vulnerability was found in /smsa/view_marks.php in Kashipara Responsive School Management System v3.2.0, which allows remote unauthenticated attackers to view MARKS details.",
"id": "GHSA-pjph-5c8j-wm5g",
"modified": "2024-08-08T15:31:29Z",
"published": "2024-08-07T18:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-41243"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/takekaramey/CVE_Writeup/blob/main/Kashipara/Responsive%20School%20Management%20System%20v3.2.0/Broken%20Access%20Control%20-%20Admin%20-%20View%20Marks.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kashipara.com/project/php/12362/responsive-school-management-system-php-project-source-code"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PJX6-5GP7-GMG5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 00:34 – Updated: 2026-07-01 15:35Insufficient policy enforcement in StorageAccessAPI in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass same origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-14156"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-30T23:17:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Insufficient policy enforcement in StorageAccessAPI in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass same origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)",
"id": "GHSA-pjx6-5gp7-gmg5",
"modified": "2026-07-01T15:35:11Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T00:34:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-14156"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_0175352312.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/518247789"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PM32-P37J-3JF8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-04 03:30 – Updated: 2025-12-17 21:30This issue was addressed with additional entitlement checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Sequoia 15.7.2. An app may be able to access user-sensitive data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-43334"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-04T02:15:40Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "This issue was addressed with additional entitlement checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Sequoia 15.7.2. An app may be able to access user-sensitive data.",
"id": "GHSA-pm32-p37j-3jf8",
"modified": "2025-12-17T21:30:32Z",
"published": "2025-11-04T03:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43334"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/125634"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/125635"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/125636"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"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.